HPrNRLF 


B   3   113   17^ 


'it'. 

^ 


A  DIGEST 


OF  THE  DECISIONS  OF  THE 


RAILROAD  COMMISSION 


OF 


WISCONSIN 


*  < 


COVERING  THE  DECISIONS  PUBLISHED  IN  VOLUMES 
I  TO  XV.  INCLUSIVE,  OF  THE  COMMISSION'S 

OFFICIAL  REPORTS. 


1  1      -1 


JULY  20,  1905,  TO  FEBRUARY  4,  1915 


COMPILED  BY 

HAROLD  L.  GEISSE 

SECRETARY 


y 


OEFf. 


.        r  • 


t  / 


0^'    {/^ 


MEMBERS 

OF  THE 

RAILROAD  COMMISSION 
OF  WISCONSIN 

During  the  Period  Covered  by  this  Digest 

JOHN  BARNES :....July  7,  1905,  to  Aug.  1,  1907 

B.  H.  MEYER July  5,  1905,  to  Jan.  1,  1911 

HALFORD  ERICKSON July  21,  1905,  to  May  1,  19ia 

JOHN  H.  ROEMER August  6,  1907,  to  Feb.  1,  1915 

DAVID  HARLOWE Jan.  20,  1911,  to  Feb.  20,  1915 


4  .. 
V  ■ 


PREFACE. 

In  the  compilation  of  this  digest  the  aim  has  been  to  state 
briefly  and  yet  clearly  the  principles  and  facts  set  forth  in 
the  decisions  of  the  Commission  published  in  Volumes  I  to 
XV,  inclusive,  of  the  Commission's  Reports.  Where  feasible 
the  exact  language  of  the  Commission  has  been  used. 

The  general  plan  of  the  Index-Digest  found  at  the  back  of 
each  volume  of  the  Reports  has  been  followed,  but  several 
departures  therefrom  are  to  be  noted.  Wherever  possible 
the  repetition  of  paragraph  headings  has  been  ehminated 
and  where  a  portion  of  a  paragraph  heading  which  is  perti- 
nent recurs,  it  has  been  omitted  and  the  ommission  is  indi- 
cated by  a  dash.  The  full  paragraph  heading  and  the  sub- 
titles are,  however ^  repeated  at  the  beginning  of  the  first 
paragraph  on  each  left-hand  page.  The  paragraph  headings 
have  also  been  shortened  by  the  introduction ,  of  a  more 
detailed  system  of  subheadings.  The  type  used  in  the  titles 
and  headings  has  been  selected  with  an  idea  of  readily 
marking  the  various  divisions  and  subdivisions.  The  inclu- 
sion of  an  index  is  deemed  superfluous  in  that  the  subject 
titles  are  arranged  alphabetically  and  supplemented  by  a 
system  of  detailed  cross-references  which,  in  fact,  makes 
the  digest  an  index. 

In  the  table  of  cases  reported  the  cases  are  classified  ac- 
cording to  the  kind  of  utility  affected,  and  where  more  than 
one  plant  of  a  joint  utility  is  concerned  the  case  is  listed  in 
each  of  the  classes  affected.  Corporate  names  containing 
the  name  of  an  individual  are  listed  under  both  the  given 
name  and  the  surname.  Names  of  municipal  corporations 
are  not  listed  under  the  prefix  "City  of,"  "Town  of,"  etc. 

In  the  localities  index  the  cases  affecting  a  locality  are 
listed  alphabetically  according  to  the  kind  of  service  fur- 
nished, i.  e.,  electric  railway,  electric  utility,  express,  etc. 


362083 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


Appl Application 

Exten Extension 

Invest Investigation 

R.  C Wisconsin  Railroad  Commission  Reports 

Stats Statutes 


11         » 


DIGEST 

OF    THE    DECISIONS    OF    THE 

RAILROAD  COMMISSION 

OF 

WISCONSIN 


JULY  20,  1905.  TO  FEBRUARY  4.  1915 

> 


ABANDONMENT 


Of  equipment  of  railroad,  see  Railroads,   1,  74-77;  Warehouses,  3. 
Of  line  or  track,  see  Street  Railways,  5,  9-10. 


ABILITY  OF  COMMODITY  TO  PAY 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
106. 

ABSORPTION  OF  CHARGES 

Question  of  absorption  immaterial  in  determining  interstate  or  intrastate 
character  of  switching  service,  see  Transportation,  6. 

Railroad  switching  charges,  see  Rates — Railroad,  311;  Reparation, 
97-99,  113. 

ACCIDENTS 

Installation   of  automatic   air  brakes  for  prevention   of  accidents,   see 

Street  Railways,  30. 
Liability  for  accidents,  in  joint  use  of  street  railway  tracks,  see  Street 

Railways,  25. 
Prevention  of  accidents  in  joint  use  of  street  railway  tracks,  see  Street 

Railways,  25. 
Report   to    Commission   of   accidents,   see   Railroad    Commission,   99; 

Street  Railways,  1. 


)  *  ^  ^,     I 


6     Accounting. -^Compliance  with  accounting  requirements 


ACCOUNTING 


I.      COMPLIANCE    WITH  ACCOUNTING  REQUIREMENTS. 
II.      COST  ACCOUNTING— DETERMINATION   OF  UNIT   COSTS. 

a.  In  general.  g.  Joint  utilities. 

b.  Electric  utilities.  h.   Railroads. 

c.  Express  companies.  i.    Street  railways. 

d.  Gas  utilities.  j.    Telephone  utilities. 

e.  Heating  utilities.  k.   Water  utilities. 

f.  Interurban  railways. 

III.'     UNIFORM   ACCOUNTS, 
a.   Electric  utilities. 


I.     COMPLIANCE    WITH   ACCOUNTING  REQUIREMENTS. 

ELECTRIC   UTILITIES. 

1.  Increase  in  rates  deferred  until  accounting  data  of  utility  conform 
to  standards  prescribed  by  the  Commission.  In  re  AppL  Neshkoro  Lt.  Sc 
P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C'.  52,  68. 

2.  Reduction  in  rates  ordered  notwithstanding  uncertainty  due  to 
failure  of  utility  to  keep  accounts  required  by  law.  City  of  Rhinelander  v. 
Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  406,  436. 

TELEPHONE   UTILITIES. 

3.  Application  for  increase  in  rates  dismissed  because  of  lack  of  ac- 
counting data  required  by  law.  In  re  AppL  Troy  Sc  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  549;  In  re  AppL  State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C. 
497,  503. 

4.  Increase  in  rates  deferred  until  accounting  data  of  utility  conform 
to  standards  prescribed  by  the  Commission.  In  re  Appt.  Plymouth 
Tel.  ExcL,  1912,  9  R.  C.  169, 178;  In  re  AppL  Platteville,  Reivey  &  Ellenboro 
TeL  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  534,  542;  In  re  AppL  Peoples'  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  499,  506;  In  re  AppL  Deerfield  TeL  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  672,  675. 

WATER    UTILITIES. 

5.  Reasonableness  of  rates  not  finally  determined  because  of  lack  of 
accounting  data  required  by  law.  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk, 
1911,  8  R.  C.  40,  55;  Lothrop  el  al.  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,"  8  R.  C.  479, 
482,  493-496. 

II.     COST  ACCOUNTING— DETERMINATION  OF  UNIT  COSTS. 

a.      IN    GENERAL 

Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output,  capacity  and  consumer 
expenses. 

6.  In  making  the  apportionment  of  the  numerous  items  of  expenses 
over  output,  capacity  and  consumer  expenses  general  outlines  must  be 
used  with  care,  since  local  conditions  may  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  in- 
fluence the  bases  used.  The  nature  of  the  power  used,  the  character  of 
the  management  and  superintendence,  the  methods  of  accounting,  and 
the  efficiency  and  physical  make-up  of  the  plant  are  factors  which  enter 
largely  into  a  consideration  of  the  apportionment  of  expenses.     City  of 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs       7 

Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  376;  In  re  Appl. 
Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  564. 

a.      IN    GENERAL — Continued 

Apportionment  of  expenses  among  the  different  departments  or 
branches  of  the  service — Indirect  expenses. 

7.  It  is  a  general  cost  accounting  principle  that  indirect  expenses 
common  to  two  or  more  services  or  general  in  nature  should  be  appor- 
tioned on  the  bas^s  of  the  direct  expenses  to  which  they  are  most  closely 
related.     In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C.  1.  32. 

b.      ELECTRIC   UTILITIES. 
Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output,  capacity  and  consumer 
expenses. 

8.  In  order  that  every  consumer  shall  pay  his  just  share  of  the  ex- 
penses, it  is  necessary  to  apportion  the  expenses  of  the  plant  between  the 
capacity  and  output  costs  and  determine  what  part  of  each  class  of  ex- 
pense shall  be  charged  against  the  consumer.  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson 
Mun.  El.  Lt.  cfc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  564.  Apportionments  made 
in:  In  re  Appl-  La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  3,  23;  In  re  Appl. 
Fox  R.  Millg.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  135,  142;  In  re  Appl.  Alma  EL  Lt. 
Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  144,  147;  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry.  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G. 
148,  157;  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville  El.  Lt.  dc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  392,  410; 
In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  3  R.  G.  484,  490-491;  In  re 
Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  831-832;  In  re  Appl.  Cum- 
berland Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  G.  214,  219;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co. 
et  al.  V.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  662;  City  of  Ripon  v. 
Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  29-30;  Citg  of  Manitowoc  v.  Mani- 
towoc El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  360,  376;  In  re  Appl.  Ml.  Horeb  El.  Lt.  Co., 
1910,  6  R.  G.  44,  49;  City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910, 
6  R.  G.  132,  141;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717, 
740;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  211;  Superior 
Comm'l.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  790; 
In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  G.  216,  220;  In  re  Appl.  Colum- 
bus W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  459;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W. 
&  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  300;  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe  El  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  227,  235;  In  re  Service  Sz  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
350,  368;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  189,  195; 
In  re  Appl.  Rhinelander  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  783,  809. 

Bases  of  apportionment. 

9.  The  variable  or  output  costs  are  sometimes  defined  as  those  ex- 
penses which  depend  on  the  output  of  current,  and  at  other  times  as  those 
expenses  which  would  stop  if  the  plant  stopped  operations.  The  demand 
or  fixed  expenses  are  sometimes  defined  as  those  expenses  which  are  inde- 
pendent of  the  output  of  current,  and  again  as  expenses  which,  like  taxes, 
depreciation,  interest  on  the  investment,  insurance  and  a  few  other  similar 
items,  would  continue  even  if  operations  were  stopped.  There  is  a  great 
deal  to  be  said  on  both  sides  of  both  of  these  definitions.  Experience, 
however,  teaches  that  neither  can  always  be  fairly  adhered  to  without 
reference  to  local  conditions.     Under  certain  conditions  the  former  ap- 


8       Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

pears  to  be  the  most  equitable;  under  other  conditions,  again,  the  latter 
appears  to  lead  to  results  that  are  just  to  all  concerned.  Where  water 
power  is  used,  the  former  method  has  often  been  found  to  be  the  fairest. 
Ross  ei  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  &  EL  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139,  154. 

b.      ELECTRIC    UTILITIES — Contined. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output,  capacity  and  consumer 
expenses — Further  apportionment  among  the  different 
classes  of  the  service. 

10.  On  the  cost  theory  each  form  of  service  should  be  charged  with 
the  expenses  of  operation  direct  or  proportional  which  it  incurs,  or  one 
class  of  service  will  be  shifting  its  burdens  and  increasing  the  expenses  of 
another  class.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &:  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  31. 
Apportionments  made  in:  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville  EL  Li.  &  P.  Co.,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  392,  412;  In  re  Men.  Sc  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  851; 
City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  374;  In  re 
AppL  Jefferson  Mun.  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  565;  In  re 
AppL  Durand  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  334,  340;  In  re  AppL  Red  Cedar 
YaL  EL  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  750;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  EL  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  256,  371;  In  re  AppL  La  Crosse  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1911, 

8  R.  C.  138,  212;  In  re  AppL  Waupaca  EL  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca, 

1912,  8  R.  C.  586,  604;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912, 

9  R.  C.  406,  422;  In  re  AppL  Village  of  Whitehall,  1912,  9  R.  C.  479,  481; 
Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C. 
704,  790;  In  re  AppL  New  Glarus  Mun.  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C. 
53,  55-56;  In  re  Invest  Evansville  Mun.  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C. 
197,  203-204;  In  re  AppL  Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  C.  216,  220-221; 
In  re  AppL  Chetek  Lt.  6c  P.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  227,  231-232;  In  re  AppL 
Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  460;  In  re  AppL  Ft.  Atkin- 
son W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  295-296,  298;  City  of  Green  Bay 
V.  Green  Bay  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  324,  330-331;  Douglass  et  al.  v. 
Equitable  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  337,  350;  In  re  Invest.  EL  Rates  in 
Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G.  584,  595;  In  re  AppL  Neshkoro  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  52,  62;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
100,  121-123;  In  re  Madison  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  259,  261-262;  In 
re  AppL  ML  HorebHL  Lt.&P.  Co.,  1914, 13  R.  G.  653, 658, 660;  Hoodetal. 
v.  Monroe  EL  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  227,  235;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens 
PL  L^.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350,  360,  365;  Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W. 
<Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485.  492;  City  of  Watertown  v.  Watertown  G.  & 
EL  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  604,  613;  Jones  et  aL  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  -134;  In  re  AppL  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  EL  Plant,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  189, 193;  In  re  AppL  United  Heat,  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  of  Delavan,  1914,  15 
R.  G.  505,  512;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  EL  Plant,  1914,  15 
R.  C.  534,  542. 

Collection  expenses. 

11.  Gollection  expenses  must  be  borne  by  the  commercial  branches 
and  the  charge  to  each  depends  upon  the  number  of  consumers.  City  of 
Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  360,  378;  Ross  et  al.  v. 
Burkhardt  Millg.  &  EL  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  139,  154. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs       9 


Commercial  expenses.       , 

12.  Commercial  expenses  are  made  up  to  a  large  extent  of  items  which 
are  directly  chargeable  to  the  particular  circuit  or  service.  Citg  of  Mani- 
towoc V.  Manitowoc  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  378. 

Consumption  expenses. 

13.  Consumption  expenses  are  to  a  large  extent  directly  charge- 
able to  the  particular  circuit  or  service.  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc 
El  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139,  154;  City  of  Manitowoc  u.  Manitowoc  EL  Lt. 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  378;  In  re  AppL  Red  Cedar  VaL  EL  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  717,  746,  748. 

14.  Consumption  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  demand 
among  the  different  classes  of  service.  In  re  AppL  New  Glarus  Mun.  El. 
Lt&  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  53,  56. 

Depreciation. 


15.  Depreciation  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty devoted  to  each  class  of  service.  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  & 
EL  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139,  154;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  EL  Lt 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  378;  In  re  AppL  Jefferson  Mun.  EL  Lt.  Sc  W. 
Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  564;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  EL 
Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  353,  365;  In  re  AppL  Red  Cedar  VaL  EL  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  717,  747;  In  re  Jt.  AppL  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca, 
1912,  8  R.  C.  586,  607;  In  re  AppL  New  Glarus  Mun.  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant, 
1912,  11  R.  C.  53,  57;  In  re  AppL  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12 
R.  C.  260,  295;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121, 
129,  130. 

Distribution  system  expenses. 

16.  Distribution  system  expenses  apportioned  on  basis  of  miles  of 
wire  used  for  each  class  of  service.  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc  El. 
P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  139,  154;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  EL  Lt.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  378;  In  re  AppL  Jefferson  Mun.  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant, 
1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  564;  In  re  AppL  Red  Cedar  VaL  EL  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
717,  745;  In  re  Jt.  AppL  Waupaca  EL  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912, 
8  R.  C.  586,  605. 

17.  Apportioned  on  basis  of  demand  of  each  class  of  service.  In  re 
AppL  Red  Cedar  VaL  EL  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  746;  In  re  AppL  New 
Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  cfc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  53,  56-57. 

Expenses  of  service  outside  of  municipality. 


18.  The  additional  cost  of  service  to  consumers  outside  the  munici- 
pality was  apportioned  over  output  and  capacity  expenses  and  a  further 
apportionment  made  as  between  commercial  lighting  and  power.  In  re 
AppL  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  300. 

General  expenses. 


19.  General  expenses,  as  an  overhead  charge,  apportioned  on  the  basis 
of  the  direct  expenses.  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc  EL  P.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  139,  154-155;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  360,  378;  In  re  Ap,pL  Darlington  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 


10     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

397,  411;  7/7  re  Appl.  Jefferson.Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
555,  564;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  353, 
365;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  746,  748;  In  re 
Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  G.  586,  607. 

b.      ELECTRIC   UTILITIES — Continued. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output,  capacity  and  consumer 
expenses — Further  apportionment  ^mong  different  classes 
of  the  service — Insurance. 

20.  Insurance  apportioned  on  basis  of  value  of  the  property  devoted 
to  each  class  of  service.     City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt,  Co.,  1910, 

5  R.  G.  360,  378;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911, 

6  R.  G.  353,  365. 

Interest. 

21.  Interest  apportioned  according  to  the  value  of  the  property  used 
for  each  class  of  service.  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc  El.  P.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  139,  154-155;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  360,  378;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Man.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant, 
1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  564;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
717,  747;  In  re  Appl.  New  Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G. 
53,  57;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260, 
295-296. 


— —     Meter  expenses. 

22.  Meter  expenses  apportioned  on  basis  of  the  number  of  meters  in 
service.     City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  360,  378. 

Municipal  equipment  rental. 


23.  Rental  apportioned  among  classes  of  service  in  proportion  to 
value  of  property  rented  for  each  purpose.  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val. 
El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  746-747. 


Power  expenses. 


24.  The  power  plant  cost  is  made  up  of  capacity  and  variable  ex- 
penses. In  the  distribution  of  these  expenses  among  the  various  classes 
of  service  the  former  should  be  based  on  the  maximum  demand  and  the 
latter  on  the  output  of  current.  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc 
El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  353,  364;  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co. 
and  Waupaca,  1911,  8  R.  G.  586,  602. 


Power  generation  expenses. 


25.  Station  output  expenses  apportioned  over  the  different  classes  of 
service  on  the  basis  of  current  generated  for  each.  Station  capacity  ex- 
penses allotted  to  the  different  classes  according  to  their  relative  demands 
upon  the  station.  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc  El.  P.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  139,  154;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
360,  378;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
555,  564;  City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  132, 
141.  147;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  742;  In  re 
Appl.  New  Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  53,  55-57. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting, — Determ.  of  unit  costs     11 


Street  lighting  (between  ornamental  and  other). 


26.  Where  there  are  two  distinct  classes  of  street  Hghting,  each  oper- 
ating on  a  different  schedule,  it  is  necessary  to  separate  the  expenses  be- 
tween the  two.  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
449,  463. 

Taxes. 


^7.  Taxes  apportioned  on  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property  devoted 
to  each  class  of  service.  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  &  El.  P.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  139,  154-155;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  360,  378;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
397,  411.  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
353,  365;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  747;  In  re 
Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  C.  586,  607; 
In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  295. 

Transmission  and  transformation  expenses. 


28.  The  variable  or  output  part  of  transmission  and  transformation 
expenses  was  distributed  over  the  different  classes  of  service  on  the  basis 
of  the  current  generated,  while  the  demand  part  was  apportioned  accord- 
ing to  the  estimated  maximum  demand  of  each  class.  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burk- 
hardt Millg.  Sc  El.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139,  154. 

Undistributed  expenses. 

29.  Undistributed  expenses  must  ordinarily  be  divided  among  the 
different  classes  of  service  by  methods  more  or  less  arbitrary.  It  is  usual 
to  consider  them  as  overhead  costs  and  to  apportion  them  according  to  the 
ratios  of  the  direct  expenses.  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  717,  746,  748;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  S:  El.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  353,  364-365;  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Wau- 
paca, 1912,  8  R.  C.  586,  607;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  121,  129. 

Further  apportionment  among  various  service  districts. 

30.  Apportionment  of  expenses  among  districts  served  by  utility. 
Douglass  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  337,  347-348;  In  re 
Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  52,  64.  ^ 

Apportionment  of  value  of  physical  property  among  the  different 
classes  of  the  service. 

31.  Value  of  physical  property  apportioned  among  the  different 
classes  of  service.  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville  El.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
392,  398;  In  re  Men.  Sc  Mar.  Lt.  Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  845;  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4.  R.  C.  501,  605;  In  re 
Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  397,  405;  City  of  White- 
water V.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  132,  134;  In  re  Appl.  Red 
Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  724;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G. 
Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  372;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg. 
Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  406,  414;  In  re  Invest.  Evamville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant, 
1912,  11  R.  C.  197,  201;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  260,  276;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  324,  326-327;  City  of  Watertown  v.  Wa^ertown  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1914, 


12     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

14  R.  C.  604,  609;  In  re  Appl.  United  Heat  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  of  Delavan,  1914, 

15  R.  C.  505,  510. 

b.      ELECTRIC   UTILITIES — Continued. 

Apportionment  of  value  of  physical  property  among  the  different 
classes   of  service — Bases   of  apportionment. 

32.  Among  the  important  factors  which  serve  as  bases  for  the  appor- 
tionment of  the  value  of  the  parts  of  the  plant  common  to  two  or  more 
classes  of  the  service  are  the  maximum  demand,  connected  load,  current 
generated,  miles  of  wire  and  poles,  number  of  consumers,  and  direct  ex- 
penses. City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  369, 
371;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  353,  359. 

Operating  data  necessary  for  computing  costs. 

33.  In  addition  to  a  correct  statement  of  operating  expenses  it  is- 
necessary  to  have  certain  statistics  of  operation  in  order  to  correctly 
adjust  rates.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  501,  673;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
360,  370. 

Prorating  of  output,  capacity  and  consumer  expenses.  ^ 

34.  Gapacity  expenses  depend  on  the  demand  or  active  load  and 
should  therefore  be  borne  by  or  distributed  over  this  load.  Output  ex- 
penses depend  on  the  output  and  should  therefore  be  borne  by  or  distributed 
over  the  output  of  current.     In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  System, 

1909,  3  R.  G.  484,  491;  In  re  Men.  Sc  Mar.  Lt.  Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
778,  832,  868,  876;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co., 

1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  663,  686;  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc  El.  P.  Co., 
1910.  5  R.  G.  139,  158,  161;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W. 
Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  569;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  717,  758,  761;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
187,  368;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  219;  City 
of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  406,  423-424;  Supe- 
rior Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704, 
797;  In  re  Invest.  EvansvilleMun.El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197, 
204-205;  In  re  Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  G.  216,  221;  In  re  Appl. 
Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  462;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkin- 
son W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  303-304,  306;  In  re  Appl.  Nesh- 
koro  Lt  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52,  63. 

c.    EXPRESS   COMPANIES. 

Apportionment    of   expenses    between    interstate    and    intrastate 
business — Bases  of  apportionment. 

35.  The  express  company  expenses  other  than  the  agency  expenses 
incurred  at  Wisconsin  points  were  apportioned  on  various  bases  according 
to  the  nature  of  the  separate  items.  In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913, 
12  R.  G.  1,  32-36. 

; Agency  expenses  incurred  at  Wisconsin  points. 

36.  The  agency  expenses  incurred  at  Wisconsin  points  by  Wells 
Fargo  &  Go.  were  apportioned  between  the  intrastate  and  interstate 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     13 

business  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  waybills  handled  in  each  class  of 
business,  the  number  of  waybills  being  estimated  from  the  average  charges 
per  waybill  for  three  months.  In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
1,  32. 

37.  All  the  apportionment  of  agency  expenses  for  the  American 
Express  Co.  were  made  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  shipments  handled, 
the  number  handled  during  the  year  being  based  on  the  average  charges 
per  shipment  for  the  month  of  September  1909.  In  re  Invest.  Express 
Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C.  1.  35. 

Railroad  cost. 

38.  All  but  1  or  2  per  cent  of  the  operations  of  Wells  Fargo  &  Go. 
were  on  the  lines  of  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Go.  The  costs  incurred  by  this 
road  in  the  performance  of  its  part  of  the  intrastate  express  service  were 
determined  by  ascertaining  the  total  cost,  including  taxes  and  7  per  cent 
on  the  cost  of  reproduction  new  of  all  operations  in  Wisconsin  separating 
the  passenger  train  from  the  freight  costs,  and  apportioning  the  separate 
items  of  passenger  train  costs  to  the  total  express  business  and  then  to  the 
intrastate  express  business  on  the  proper  bases.  The  other  railroads  and 
electric  lines  carry  such  a  small  percentage  of  Wells  Fargo  &  Go's  business 
that  separate  analysis  of  their  costs  was  not  attempted.  In  re  Invest. 
Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  33. 

d.    GAS   UTILITIES. 
Apportionment  of  expenses — Among  localities  served. 

39.  Where  a  utility  supplies  service  in  more  than  one  municipality 
an  apportionment  of  expenses  should  be  made  as  between  the  different 
locaHties.     City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  291. 

Distribution  system  expenses. 

40.  Street  department  expense  and  maintenance  of  mains  are  appor- 
tioned on  the  basis  of  miles  of  main  in  the  two  systems.  City  of  Racine  v. 
Racine  Gas  L/.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  300. 

—     General  expenses. 

41.  General  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  output.  City  of 
Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  300. 

Production  expenses. 

42.  Thie  cost  of  production  is  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  sales  in 
the  two  cities.     City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  299. 

Taxes. 

43.  Taxes  are  divided  on  the  basis  of  property  used.  City  of  Racine 
V.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  300. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output,  capacity  and  consumer 
expenses. 

44.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1908, 
3  R.  G.  163,  172;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  56; 
In  re  Appl.  Green  Bay  Gas  Sc  El  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  101,  104;  City  of  Beloit 
V.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  352;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan 


14     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

G.  Lt.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  439,  459;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  aL  v.  Superior 
W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  775;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay 
G.  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  324,  329:  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  G.  Lt. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  441,  482-484;  Yanko  et  al.  v.  Portage  American  G.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  C.  136,  142;  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  G.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
325,  336-337. 

d.      GAS    UTILITIES — Continued. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output,  capacity  and  consumer 
expenses — Bases  of  apportionment. 

45.  Bases  of  apportionment  explained  in  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Mil 
waukee  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  441,  479. 

Commercial  expenses. 

46.  Commercial  expenses,  including  such  items  as  collection  salaries 
and  commissions,  reading  meters  and  delivering  bills,  collection  supplies 
and  expenses,  are  all  consumer  expenses.  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  306. 


Depreciation. 

47.  Depreciation  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  direct  expenses. 
City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  306. 

48.  Depreciation  apportioned  according  to  the  investment  in  and 
^se  of  the  several  portions  of  the  plant.  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El. 
Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138,  195;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  C.  100,  118;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  441,  481,  483;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  121,  129,  130. 


Distribution  system  expenses. 

49.  Method  of  apportionment  described.  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine 
Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  306. 

General  expenses. 

50.  General  expenses  treated  as  overhead  charges  and  distributed 
on  the  basis  of  the  total  direct  expenses.  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt. 
Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  306;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  121,  129. 

Interest. 


51.  Interest  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  direct  expenses.  City  of 
Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  L^  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  306. 

52.  Interest  apportioned  according  to  the  investment  in  and  use  of 
the  several  portions  of  the  plant.  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co., 
1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  195;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  G,  441, 481, 483;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13 
R.  G.  100.  118. 

——     Production  expenses. 

53.  Production  expenses  considered  as  all  output  expenses.  City  of 
Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  306. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     15 

—     Taxes. 

54.  Taxes  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  direct  expenses.  City  of 
Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  306;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin 
Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  129. 

55.  Apportioned  according  to  the  investment  in  and  use  of  the  sev- 
eral portions  of  the  plant.     In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911, 

8  R.  C.  138,  195;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  Sc  El  Co.,  1913, 13  R.  C. 
100,  118. 

Undistributed  expenses. 

56.  Undistributed  expenses  treated  as  overhead  charges  and  dis- 
tributed on  the  basis  of  the  total  direct  expenses.  City  of  Racine  v. 
Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  306;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public 
Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  129. 

Further  apportionment  among  the  different  classes  of  the 

service. 

57.  In  determining  the  proper  rates  it  is  necessary  to  apportion  the 
expenses  of  the  utility  over  the  several  classes  of  consumers.  City  of 
Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  244-245;  City  of  Beloit  v. 
Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  256-257;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of 
Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479,  490. 

Apportionment    of   value    of   the    physical    property    among    the 
various  service  districts. 

58.  Value  of  physical  property  apportioned  among  the  different 
localities  served.  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
228,  245;  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  477,  479. 

Production   equipment. 

59.  Production  equipment,  including  land,  buildings,  machinery, 
etc.,  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  sales  to  the  two  cities.  City  of  Ra- 
cine V.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  298. 

— Storage  equipment. 

60.  Storage  equipment,  including  holders,  apportioned  largely  on  the 
basis  of  present  use.  »City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
228,  298. 

Average  cost. 

61.  Average  cost  seldom  a  satisfactory  basis  for  making  rates  for  gas 
utilities.     In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  163,  172. 

Prorating  of  output,  capacity  and  consumer  expenses. 

62.  In  order  to  arrive  at  the  unit  costs  for  gas  service  it  is  necessary 
to  apportion  the  output  capacity  and  consumer  expenses  to  the  units  to 
which  they  apply.  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  163, 
172;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  cfc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G. 
501,  735;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  306;  In  re 
Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  197;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of 
Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479,  491;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1912, 

9  R.  G.  439,  460,  462. 


16     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

e.    HEATING   UTILITIES. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output?  capacity,  and  consumer 
expenses. 

63.  Apportionment  of  expenses  somewhat  similar  to  apportionment 
used  for  gas  plants.  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C. 
138,  209;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121    141. 

Depreciation. 

64.  Allowance  for  depreciation  based  upon  the  reserve  required  for 
the  renewal  of  each  item  of  equipment.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public 
Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121,  129,  130. 

General  expense. 

65.  General  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  division  of  the 
direct  expenses.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
121,  129. 

Taxes. 

66.  Taxes  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  division  of  the  direct  ex- 
penses.    Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  129. 

Undistributed  expenses.      , 

67.  Undistributed  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  division 
of  the  direct  expenses.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  121,  129. 

Prorating  of  output,  capacity  and  consumer  expenses. 

68.  The  consumer  expenses  divided  by  the  number  of  patrons  gives 
the  annual  sum  to  be  paid  by  each  patron  regardless  of  the  number  of 
square  feet  of  radiating  surface.  The  output  expenses  divided  by  the 
total  radiating  area  gives  the  unit  output  price  to  be  paid  per  square  foot. 
In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  209. 

f.   INTERURBAN    RAILWAYS. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  among  the  diflferent  departments  or 
branches  of  the  service — (interurban  and  urban) — Depre- 
ciation. 

69.  Depreciation  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty in  each  branch  of  the  service.  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  R.  <Sc  Lt.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  493. 

General  expenses. 


70.  General  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  overhead  expenses. 
Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  R.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  492. 


Power  expenses. 


71.  Power  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  current  consumed 
by  each  branch  of  the  service.  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  R.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  473,  489. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     17 


Taxes. 

72.  Taxes  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property  in 
each  branch  of  the  service.  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  R.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  473,  493. 


Undistributed  expenses. 

73.  Undistributed  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  overhead 
expenses.     Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  R.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  473,  492. 

Way  and  structures  expense. 

74.  The  interurban  system's  share  of  the  way  and  structures  expenses 
was  based  on  the  amount  of  its  car  mileage  within  the  city.  Lamb  v. 
Eastern  Wis.  R.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  473,  488. 

(Urban,  suburban  and  interurban). 

75.  Operating  expenses  for  the  entire  traction  system  apportioned 
among  the  urban,  suburban  and  interurban  departments.  Deakin  et  at. 
V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  306,  311. 


Interurban  department  expenses. 

76.  Expenses  for  the  interurban  department  apportioned  over  the 
several  Unes  involved.  Deakin  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C. 
306,  312. 

Terminal  and  movement  expenses. 

77.  The  total  cost  of  service  for  the  interurban  lines  was  apportioned 
between  movement  and  terminal  expenses.  Deakin  et  al.  v.  T,  M.  E.  R.  Sc 
L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  306,  313. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  of  interstate  system  between  portion 
of  line  within  the  state  and  the  remainder  of  the  system — 
Bases  of  apportionment. 

78.  Such  expenses  as  maintenance  of  cars  are  most  accurately  divided 
upon  the  basis  of  car  mileage,  while  others,  such  as  wages  of  passenger  car 
employes,  depend  upon  the  car-hours.  A  third  basis,  upon  which  such 
items  as  power  expenses  are  to  be  divided,  is  the  kilowatt-hours  of  current 
consumed.     Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  695,  699. 

Depreciation. 

79.  Depreciation  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty in  each  state.  Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  695, 
709-710. 

Equipment  expenses. 

80.  In  the  present  case  the  equipment  expenses  were  apportioned  as 
follows:  Maintenance  of  passenger  and  combination  cars  on  the  basis  of 
passenger,  motor  and  trail  car  mileage;  maintenance  of  freight  and  ex- 
press cars  on  the  basis  of  freight  and  express  car  mileage;  maintenance  of 
utility  equipment  of  cars  on  the  overhead  basis  of  expenses  for  mainte- 
nance of  way  and  electric  line;  shop  and  miscellaneous  equipment  expenses 
on  the  overhead  basis  of  expenses  for  equipment,  excluding  superinten- 
dence; maintenance  of  substation  equipment  on  the  basis  of  kilowatt- 
hours  output;  and  superintendence  of  equipment  on  the  overhead  basis 


18     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

of  all  other  equipment  expenses.     Schicker  v.  Rockford  Sc  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  695,  706,  707. 

f.      INTERURBAN    RAILWAY. — Continued. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  of  interstate  system  between  portion 
of  line  within  the  state  and  the  remainder  of  the  system- 
General  expenses. 

81.  General  expenses  apportioned  on  the  overhead  basis  of  all  other 
operating  expenses.  Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
695,  709. 

Taxes. 

82.  In  apportioning  taxes  the  amounts  were  charged  against  the 
years  in  which  they  accrued.  In  order  to  apply  the  amount  paid  in  the 
calendar  yeai*  to  the  fiscal  year  of  the  company,  one-half  of  the  tax  for  each 
year,  plus  one-half  of  the  amount  for  the  next  year  was  taken  as  correct. 
Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  695,  709. 

Traffic  expenses. 

83.  Probably  the  most  satisfactory  basis  of  apportionment  of  traffic 
expenses  would  be  according  to  the  number  of  passengers  carried  in  the 
two  states,  but  in  the  absence  of  data  upon  this  subject,  the  passenger 
and  special  car  revenue  of  the  two  states  has  been  used  as  a  basis  in  the 
present  case.     Schicker  v.  Rockford  Sc  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  695,  708-709. 

Transportation  expenses. 

84.  Transportation  expenses  apportioned  between  the  two  states  on 
various  bases.  Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  695, 
707-708. 


Undistributed  expenses. 

85.  Undistributed  expenses  apportioned  on  the  overhead  basis  of  all 
other  operating  expenses.  Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
695,  709. 

Way  and  structures  expenses. 

86.  Way  and  structures  expenses  divided  between  weather  and 
traffic  expenses.  Expenses  due  to  weather  divided  on  the  basis  of  track 
mileage,  and  those  due  to  traffic  on  the  basis  of  car  mileage.  Schicker  v. 
Rockford  <Sc  I.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  695,  705. 

Apportionment  of  the  value  of  the  physical  property  among  the 
diflferent  departments  or  branches  of  the  service. 

87.  Apportionment  made  in  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  R.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  473,  478;  Deakin  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G. 
306,  310. 

Prorating  of  expenses  over  units  of  service. 

88.  Terminal  expenses  were  prorated  according  to  the  number  of 
revenue  passengers  while  the  movement  expenses  were  distributed  over 
revenue  passenger  miles.  Deakin  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  306,  313. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     19 


,  g.   JOINT  UTILITIES. 

Apportionment     of    expenses     among     the     different     plants — In 
general. 

89.  To  ascertain  the  cost  per  unit  of  production  for  each  utility 
presents  no  simple  problem.  Each  utility  must  stand  on  its  own  feet; 
gas  consumers  cannot  be  expected  to  carry  any  of  the  burdens  of  the  water 
consumers;  the  water  consumers,  again,  cannot  be  charged  with  part  of 
the  costs  of  the  electric  service.  A  large  portion  of  the  investment  of  the 
company,  and  a  large  part  of  the  operating  expenses  of  the  plants,  are 
directly  chargeable  to  a  particular  utility  and  a  particular  class  of  service. 
The  remaining  investment  and  expenses  are  common  to  two  or  three 
utilities,  and  such  equipment  and  costs  must  be  apportioned  between  the 
utilities  on  fair  and  reasonable  bases.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El. 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  256. 

(Electric  and  gas) 

90.  Expenses  apportioned  between  electric  and  gas  plants.  State 
Journal  Prig.  Co.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  EL  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  592. 


(Electric,  gas  and  heating) 

91.  Expenses  apportioned  among  electric,  gas  and  heating  plants. 
In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138,  202.  Jones  et  at.  v. 
Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  127. 

(Electric,  gas  and  electric  railway) 

92.  Expenses  apportioned  among  electric,  gas  and  electric  railway 
plants.  In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  814;  Lamb 
V.  Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  483. 

(Electric,  gas  and  water) 


93.  Expenses  apportioned  among  electric,  gas  and  water  plants. 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  23;  Cunningham  et  al. 
V.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  302,  327;  City  of 
Beloit  V.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  256. 

(Electric,  gas  and  heating) 

94.  Expenses  apportioned  among  electric,  gas  and  heating  plants. 
City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100. 

(Electric,  heating  and  electric  railway) 

95.  Expenses  apportioned  among  electric,  gas  and  electric  railway 
plants.     City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M,  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  165. 

(Electric  and  electric  railway) 

96.  Expenses  apportioned  between  electric  and  electric  railway  plants. 
In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  G.  178,  227. 

(Electric  and  water) 

97.  Expenses  apportioned  between  electric  and  water  plants.  In  re 
Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197,  203;  In  re 
Appl.  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  457;llnlre  Appl. 


20     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

Ft,  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  290-292;  Kittleson  et  at. 
V.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  cfc  Lt.  Plant,  1914, 14  R.  C.  485,  489;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo 
Mun.  W.  &  EL  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534,  540,  541. 

g.      JOINT    UTILITIES — Continued. 

Apportionment    of  expenses    among    different    plants — Deprecia- 
tion— (Electric,  gas  and  >vater) 

98.  Depreciation  actually  computed  for  each  plant.  City  of  Ripon  v. 
Ripon  Lt.  6c  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  26. 

(Electric  and  water) 

99.  Depreciation  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty and  the  nature  of  the  equipment  for  each  plant.  In  re  Invest.  Evans- 
ville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197,  203. 

100.  Depreciation  actually  computed  for  each  plant.  In  re  Appl. 
Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449,  459. 

General  expenses — (Electric  and  gas) 

101.  The  fairest  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  the  general  expenses 
between  two  plants  so  situated  as  those  involved  in  the  case  under  con- 
sideration would  seem  to  be  their  respective  demand  upon  the  manage- 
ment as  measured  by  the  direct  expenses  of  each  plant.  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  at.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  592. 


(Electric,  gas  and  heating) 

102.  Practice  indicates  that  general  expenses  should  be  apportioned 
among  the  plants  on  the  basis  of  the  direct  expense.  City  of  Waukesha  v. 
Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  100,  115. 

(Electric,  gas  and  electric  railway) 


103.  General  expenses  distributed  in  proportion  to  the  total  expenses. 
In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  cS:  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  814. 

104f  General  expenses  not  directly  chargeable  to  any  of  the  three 
plants  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  overhead  expenses.  Lamb  v.  Eastern 
Wis.  Ry.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  473,  483. 

(Electric,  gas  and  water) 


105.  General  expenses  not  directly  chargeable  to  any  of  the  three 
plants  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  direct  expenses.  City  of  Ripon  v. 
Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  26;  Cunningham  et  at.  v.  Chippewa 
Falls  W.  Wks.  <k  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  302,  327. 

(Electric,  heating  and  electric  railway) 


106.  General  expenses  not  directly  chargeable  to  any  of  the  three 
plants  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  direct  expenses.  City  of  Milwaukee 
V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  165. 

(Electric  and  water) 

107.  General  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  direct  expanses. 
In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  459;  In  re 
Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  290,  292. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     21 

Interest — (Electric  and  water) 

108.  Interest  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property 
for  each  plant.  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Plant,  1912, 
11  R.  C.  197,  203;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Li!  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
449,  459. 

Production  expenses — (Electric,  gas  and  heating) 

109.  Because  the  heating  business  must  receive  all  the  heat  of  the 
steam  which  the  engines  have  not  converted  into  energy,  hardly  seems  to 
be  a  valid  reason  for  charging  the  heating  business  with  that  proportion 
of  the  cost  of  steam  generated;  for  even  in  the  most  efTicient  steam  oper- 
ated electric  plants,  only  a  relatively  small  amount  of  the  energy  of  the 
steam  is  converted  into  useful  work,  the  remainder  being  lost  in  various 
ways.     In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  202. 

— ^- • —      (Electric  and  electric  railway) 

110.  Power  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  kilowatt -hours 
consumed  by  each  department.  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  &  Lt.  Co.^ 
1911,  6R.  G.  473,  482. 

Taxes — (Electric  and  gas) 

111.  Taxes  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property  for 
each  plant.  State  Journal  Prig.  Co.et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas^Sc  El.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  501,  594. 


(Electric,  gas  and  heating) 

112.  Taxes  apportioned  to  the  three  utilities  on  the  basis  of  the 
valuation  made  by  the  Gommission.  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  Sc 
EL  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100,  115. 

. (Electric,  gas  and  electric  railway) 

113.  Taxes  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property  for 
each  plant.  In  re  Men.  Sc  Mar.  Lt.  Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  816; 
Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  Rq.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  484. 

(Electric,  gas  and  water) 


114,  Taxes  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property  for 
each  plant.     Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  Sc  Ltg.  Co.,, 
1910,  5  R.  G.  302,  328. 

(Electric  and  electric  railw^ay) 


115.  Seventy  per  cent  of  the  taxes  apportioned  to  the  railway  plant. 
In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  178,  227. 

(Electric  and  water) 


116.  Taxes  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property  for 
each  plant.  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912, 
11  R.  G.  197,  203;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
449,  459. 


22     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 


g.      JOINT   UTILITIES — Continued. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  among  different  plants — Undistributed 
expenses — (Electric,  gas  and  electric  railway) 

117.  Undistributed  expenses  not  directly  chargeable  to  any  of  the 
plants  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  overhead  expenses.  Lamb  v. 
Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  <Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  483. 

(Electric  and  water) 


118.  Undistributed  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  direct 
expenses.  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449, 
459;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  290-292. 

Apportionment    of   value    of   the    physical    property    among    the 
different  plants — (Electric  and  gas) 

119.  Apportionment  made  in  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  Gas 
&  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  556;  In  re  Invest.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  G.  152,  156. 

(Electric,  gas  and  heating) 

120.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  125. 

(Electric,  gas  and  electric  railway) 

121.  In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  816;  City 
ofNeenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  477,  480. 

(Electric,  gas  and  water) 

122.  City  ofRipon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  8;  Cunning- 
ham et  al.  V.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  Sc  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  302,  339; 
City  ofBeloit  v.  Beloit  W.  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  201. 

— \ —     (Electric,  heating  and  electric  railway) 

123.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1, 
111,  113. 

(Electric  and  electric  railway) 

124..  Fullmer  v.  Wausau  St.  R.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  114,  122;  Lamb  v. 
Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  477. 

(Electric,  telephone  and  pumping) 

125.  In  re  Appl.  J.  L.  Ball,  1907,  2  R.  G.  105,  109. 

(Electric  and  water) 

126.  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  397, 
405;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  556 
In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197,  201 
In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  200-201 
In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  275;  Kittle- 
son  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485,  489. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     23 


h.    RAILROADS. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  among  the  different  departments  or 
branches  of  the  service. 

127.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Rates  on  Grain,  1906,  1  R.  C. 
124,  129;  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906. 
1  R.  C.  258,  280;  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  324,  341-485; 
In  re  Passenger  Rates  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  540,  568; 
Noble  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <k  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  767,  775;  /n  re  Rates 
on  Milk  and  Cream,  1908,  2  R.  G.  450,  470;  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  95,  96;  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  170,  182;  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  365,  390. 

Interest. 

128.  Interest  apportioned  between  freight  and  passenger  traffic  on 
the  basis  of  the  gross  earnings.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G. 
324,  483,  484. 

—     Taxes. 

129.  Taxes  apportioned  between  freight  and  passenger  traffic  on 
the  basis  of  the  gross  earnings.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  G.  324,  477. 

Further  apportionment  between   terminal   and    movement 

,      expenses. 

130.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Rates  on  Grain,  1906,  1  R.  G. 
124,  129;  So.  Wis.  Cheesemen's  Protective  Ass.  v.  Ry.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  G. 
143,  153;  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1 
R.  G.  258,  280;  Noble  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  767, 
775;  In  re  Rates  on  Live  Stock,  1907,  1  R.  G.  778,  807;  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C. 
M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  170,  182;  In  re  Marathon  County 
R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  392,  397;  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  365,  390. 

Movement  expenses — Further  apportionment  between  local 

and  through  traffic. 

131.  Apportionment  made  in  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  258,  281 ;  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  G.  324,  487-499. 

Apportionment    of    expenses    betw^een    intrastate    and    interstate 
traffic. 

132.  The  operating  expenses  for  the  hne  in  Wisconsin  were  appor- 
tioned to  this  state  in  the  proportion  that  the  revenue  train  mileage 
which  was  made  within  the  state  bore  to  the  total  train  mileage.  Buell  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  324,  375. 

133.  The  company's  report  apportioned  21  per  cent  of  the  expenses 
to  Wisconsin.  In  re  Passenger  Rates  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  G.  540,  567. 


24     Accounting, — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

h.      RAILROADS. — Continued. 

Apportionment    of   expenses    between    intrastate    and    interstate 
traflFic — Dividends  on  stock. 

134.  Dividends  on  stock  apportioned  to  Wisconsin  in  the  proportion 
which  the  miles  of  road  located  in  this  state  bore  to  the  total  length  of 
the  road  for  the  entire  system.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  G.  324,  375. 

Interest  on  bonds. 

135.  The  interest  on  the  bonds  apportioned  to  Wisconsin  in  the  pro- 
portion which  the  miles  of  road  located  in  this  state  bore  to  the  total 
length  of  the  road  for  the  entire  system.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  324,  375. 

Apportionment  of,  the  value  of  the  physical  property  among  the 
different  departments  or  branches  of  the  service. 

136.  Value  of  the  physical  property  apportioned  between  freight 
and  passenger  traffic.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G. 
324,  475. 

Prorating  of  expenses  over  units  of  service  performed. 

137.  The  total  expenses  for  each  department,  in  turn,  should  be  so 
distributed  over  the  units  of  service  performed  by  the  same,  that  each 
unit  is  made  to  bear  its  just  proportion  of  this  total,  which  proportion  is 
best  measured  by  the  cost  of  the  service  to  the  carrier,  when  this  cost  is 
modified  by  what  the  traffic  can  fairly  bear,  or  by  the  value  and  character 
of  the  articles  transported,  and  by  commercial  and  competitive  conditions. 
Webster  Mfg.  Co.  t.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  95,  96;  Paxton 
Sc  Lightbody  Co.  v.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  531,  542;  Pulp  &  Paper 
Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.,  365,  390. 

i.    STREET  RAILWAYS. 

Apportionment    of    expenses    among    allied    companies — Mainte- 
nance of  way 

138.  Maintenance  of  way  expenses  apportioned  between  *T.  M. 
E.  R.  &  L.  Go.  and  the  M.  L.  H.  &  T.  Go.  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R. 
Sz  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  G.  178,  216-219. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  among  the  different  departments  or 
branches  of  the  service — (Urban,  suburban  and  interurban). 

139.  Apportionment  of  the  operating  expenses  for  the  entire  traction 
system  made  as  among  urban,  suburban  and  interurban  departments. 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  160,  282-283; 
Cusick  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  314,  331;  Koenig  et  al. 
V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  337,  349;  Village  of  East  Milwau- 
kee V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  358,  366;  In  re  Modification 
Milwaukee  Urban  Fare  Decision,  1915,  15  R.  G.  724,  733. 

Conducting    transportation. 

140.  Gertain  of  the  costs  of  conducting  .transportation  vary  propor- 
tionately to  the  car-hour,  certain  other  costs  to  the  car-miles,  and  a  third 
class  of  costs  to  the  number  of  passengers  carried.  City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  209-215. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     25 

Joint  track  expenses. 

141.  Apportionment  of  joint  track  expenses  varying  with  the  track- 
mile  were  based  upon  the  relative  headway  of  the  various  lines  using  the 
track.     City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  274. 

Maintenance  of  rolling  stock  expenses. 

142.  Apportionment  of  expenses  for  maintenance  of  rolling  stock 
made  on  the  car-mile  basis.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  205-209. 


Maintenance  of  way  and  structures. 

143.  The  various  items  apportioned  according  to  their  nature,  on  a 
car-mile,   track-mile,    overhead,    direct   charge   or   arbitrary   percentage- 
basis.     City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  204. 

Overhead  expenses. 

'  144.  Reserve  charges  prorated  on  a  gross  earnings  basis.  General 
and  executive  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  total  direct  ex- 
penses.    City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  167. 

Power  expenses.  ^ 

145.  Power  plant  expenses  for  the  separate  power  stations  appor- 
tioned on  the  basis  of  weighted  car  miles  tributary  to  each  station.  City 
of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  186-188. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  among  the  localities  served. 

146.  Expenses  apportioned  between  Superior  and  Duluth.  Superior 
Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  St.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  1,  24. 

Apportionment  of  the  value  of  the  physical  property  among  the 
different  departments  or  branches  of  the  service  (urban, 
suburban  and  interurban) 

147.  Apportionment  made  in:  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  cfc 
L.  Co.,  1912,  lOR.C.  1,112, 115;  Cusicket  al.v.  T.M.E.R.  <Sc  L.Co.et  al, 
1912,  10  R.  C.  314,  328;  Koenig  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  cfc  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912, 
10  R.  C.  337,  346;  Village  of  East  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  C.  358,  364. 

Further  apportionment  among  the  different  lines. 

148.  In  segregating  the  tangible  values  applicable  to  the  different 
lines,  the  appraisal  of  the  engineer  of  the  Commission  has  been  directly 
localized  wherever  possible.  In  instances,  however,  where  track  and 
other  equipment  has  been  used  jointly  the  separation  of  values  has  neces- 
sarily been  made  upon  an  arbitrary  unit  basis.  City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  275,  Z1^211. 

Joint  track. 

149.  For  the  purpose  of  distributing  joint  track  values  in  the  appor- 
tionment of  the  cost  of  reproduction  new  it  has  been  deemed  advisable 
to  base  the  apportionment  of  joint  track  upon  the  relative  headway  of  the 
various  lines  using  such  track.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L. 
Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,274. 


26     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Deter m.  of  unit  costs 

i.      STREET    RAILWAYS. — Continued. 
Prorating  of  expenses  over  units  of  service. 

150.  The  total  cost  of  service  prorated  over  the  various  units  of 
service  according  to  the  number  of  passengers  carried,  car-miles,  car- 
hours  and  track  miles  for  the  various  systems,  services  and  companies. 
City  oj  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  i?.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  274;  Cusick 
et  al.  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  et  al.,'  1912,  10  R.  C.  314,  334;  Koenig  et  al.  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  337,  350-351;  Village  of  East 
Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  358,  365,  367;  Superior 
Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  St.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  1,  24-25,  28. 

j.    TELEPHONE   UTILITIES. 
Apportionment  of  expenses  between  toll  and  exchange  expenses. 

151.  In  cases  where  separation  is  possible,  toll  expenses  should  be 
treated  without  reference  to  the  various  exchanges.  In  re  Appl.  Inter- 
urban  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  647,  650. 

152.  Expenses  apportioned  among  local,  rural  and  toll  departments, 
on  an  arbitrary  basis.     In  re  Appl.  Portage  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  692,  695. 

Apportionment  of  exchange  expenses  among  the  different 

exchanges. 

153.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Appl.  Badger  State  Tel.  &  Teleg. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  407,  413;  In  re  Appl.  Marion  Sc  Northern  Tel.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.C.  552,  557,558. 

Miscellaneous    advertising    and    canvassing    expenses. 

154.  Miscellaneous  advertising  and  canvassing  expenses  apportioned 
among  exchanges-  on  the  basis  of  earnings.  Columbus  Advancement  Assn. 
V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  414,  419. 


Miscellaneous    maintenance     and     current    repair    ex- 
penses. 

155.  Miscellaneous  maintenance  and  current  repair  expenses  appor- 
tioned on  the  basis  of  the  direct  expenses  for  salaries  and  wages  under  this 
head.  Columbus  Advancement  Assn.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  414, 
419. 

Apportionment    of   exchange    expenses    between    fixed    and 

variable  expenses. 

156.  In  the  case  of  telephone  companies,  as  in  other  utilities,  the  ex- 
penses may  be  divided  into  two  groups,  those  varying  with  the  amount 
of  business  done,  or  the  variable  expenses,  and  those  which  remain  prac- 
tically the  same  whatever  the  amount  of  business  done,  or  the  fixed  ex- 
penses.    In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee- Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  465,  471. 

Further  apportionment  among  the  different  branches  or 

departments  of  service. 

157.  Such  expenses  as  vary  with  the  amount  of  business  done  by  the 
plant  are  properly  chargeable  against  subscribers  in  approximate  propor- 
tion to  the  use  of  the  plant  made  by  each.  The  fixed  expenses  should  be 
borne  equally  by  all  subscribers.  In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  465,  471. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Dehrm.  of  unit  costs     27 

158.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Point  Tel.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  C.  285,  300;  Arena  &  Ridg'y  Tel.  Co.  v.  Troy  &  Honey  Creek 
Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  763,  769-770. 

— : —     Central  office  expenses. 

159.  Central  office  expenses  apportioned  among  the  city,  rural,  and 
the  rural  connecting  lines  on, the  basis  of  the  percentages  obtained  from 
the  traffic  analysis.  In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mat.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C. 
666.681. 


Depreciation. 

160.  Depreciation  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty.    In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  666,.681. 

Expenses  proportional  to  central  office  invest- 
ment. 

161.  A  portion  of  the  expenses  proportional  to  central  office  invest- 
ment apportioned  to  rural  lines.  In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Point  Tel.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  C.  285,  300. 


Interest. 

162.  Interest  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property. 
In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  666,  681. 

Rental  for  through  lines. 

163.  The  annual  rental  for  through  lines  apportioned  according  to 
use  among  the  city,  the  rural,  and  the  rural  connecting  lines.  In  re  Appl. 
Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  666,  681. 

Salaries  of  operators. 


164.  Operators'    salaries    apportioned    between    exchange    and    toll 
service.     In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Point  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  285,  299. 

Taxes. 


165.  Taxes  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property. 
In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  666,  681. 

: Wire  plant  expenses. 


166.  Wire  plant  expenses  apportioned  among  local,  rural,  and  rural 
connecting  lines  according  to  the  property  used  in  each  service.  In  re 
Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  666,  681. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  to  switching  service — Further  appor- 
tionment among  the  different  foreign  lines  and  foreign 
subscribers. 

167.  Apportionment  on  the  basis  of  a  traffic  study  of  total  expenses 
of  exchanges  performing  switching  service  for  foreign  lines  to  show  cost 
of  this  service;  further  apportionment  to  show  expenses  to  (1)  foreign 
lines  not  connecting  with  second  exchange;  (2)  foreign  lines  connecting 
with  second  exchange;  (3)  subscribers  on  foreign  lines  connected  with 
second  exchange;  and  (4)  second  exchange.  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel. 
Co.  ofBeetown,  1914,  13  R.  C.  540,  558-570. 


28     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

168.  Apportionment  of  additional  expense,  incident  to  betterment 
of  service,  to  cost  of  switching  service;  further  apportionment  to  show  ex- 
pense to  (1)  subscribers  on  foreign  lines  not  connected  with  second  ex- 
change; (2)  expense  to  subscribers  on  foreign  lines  connecting  with  sec- 
ond exchange;  and  (3)  expense  to  second  exchange.  In  re  Appl.  Farmers' 
Tel.  Co.  ofBeetowh,  1914,  13  R.  C.  540,  581-3c2. 

j.      TELEPHONE    UTILITIES — Continued. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  to  switching  service — Further  appor- 
tionment amorg  the  different  foreign  lines  and  foreign 
subscribers — Bases  of  apportionment. 

169.  Bases  of  apportionment  outlined.  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel. 
Co.  ofBeetown,  1914,  13  R.  C.  540,  570. 

Apportionment  of  the  value  of  the  physical  property — Apportion- 
ment among  the  different  departments  or  branches  of  the 
service. 

170.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Appl.  Portage  Tel.  Co.,  1908, 
2  R.  G.  692,  694;  Tighe  et  al.  v.  Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  117,  125; 
In  re  Appl.  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  535,  547;  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  1,  9;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
647,  650;  In  re  Appl.  Badger  State  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  407, 
412;  In  re  Appl.  Marion  Sz  Northern  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  552,  560. 

Apportionemt  among  the  different  exchanges. 

171.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of 
Beetown,  1914,  13  R.  G.  540,  553-554;  In  re  Appl.  Badger  State  Tel.  Sz 
Teleg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  407,  413. 

Apportionment   to   show  the  value  of  the  property  used   by 

foreign   telephone    utilities. 

172.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Bee- 
town,  1914,  13  R.  G.  540,  552-553;  Curtiss  &  Withee  Tel.  Co.  v.  Owen  Tel. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  419,  423-424;  In  re  Appl  Trego  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
499,  502-503. 

Apportionment  of  the  value  of  toll  line  between  connecting 

companies. 

173.  The  value  of  the  toll  line  apportioned  between  the  Kingston 
Tel.  Go.  and  the  H.  A.  Price  Tel.  Go.  In  re  Tel.  Toll  Rates  Markesan  to 
Kingston,  1914,  15  R.  G.  288,  292. 

k.    WATER   UTILITIES. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output,  capacity  and  consumer 
expenses. 

174.  Before  the  proper  distribution  of  the  total  charges  for  water 
can  be  determined,  the  operating  expenses  must  be  separated  into  fixed 
and  variable,  or  capacity  and  output  expenses.  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ash- 
land Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  273,  289. 

175.  Apportionment  made  in:  In  re  Appl.  Madison  City  W.  Wks., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  299,  305-306;  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910, 
5  I^.  G.  731,  754  et  seq.;  Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G. 
26,  36;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  651;. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     29 

Lothrop  V.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479,  486;  West  et  al.  v.  City  of 
Eau  Claire,  1912,  9  R.  C.  134,  147;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Supe- 
rior W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  763;  Rollins  et  al.  v.  Village  of 
Montfort,  1913,  11  R.  C.  278,  284;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm., 
1913,  11  R.  C.  449,  466;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913,  11  R.  C. 
690,  692;  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  291,  300-303; 
Dennet  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  C.  634,  642;  Hughes  et  al.  v. 
Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  669,  674-689. 

Further  apportionment  among  the  different  classes  of  the 

service. 

176.  In  order  that  each  class  of  consumers  may  bear  its  share  of  the 
cost  of  service  it  is  necessary  to  apportion  the  expenses  of  operation  be- 
tween general  service  and  fire  and  other  municipal  service.     In  re  Appl. 
Madison  City  \V.  Wks.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  299,  319.     Apportionment  made  in: 
City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  286,  292,  295; 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  62;  In  re  Appl. 
Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  578;  Dick  et  al.  u. 
Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C,  731,  759;  Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of 
Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  C.  26,  36;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  256-257;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  497,  535  et  sen.;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
628,  651;  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  C.  40,  47;  City  of 
Marinette  v.  City  Water  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911,  8  R.  C.  334,  365;  West  et  al. 
V.  City  of  Eau  Claire,  1912,  9  R.  C.  134,  147-148;  Civic  League  et  al.  u. 
Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  661,  680-681;  Superior  Comml.  Club 
et  al.  V.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  764;  In  re  Appl.  City 
of  Neenah,  1912,  11  R.  C.  119,  122-123;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El. 
Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197,  208;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay 
W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236,  259;  Rollins  el  al.  v.  Village  of  Montfort,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  278,  284;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G 
449,  467;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  G.  148,  151;  In  re  Appl 
Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  201-203;  In  re  Appl 
Ff.  Atkinson  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  311-312;  In  re  Appl 
City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G.  532,  542;  In  re  Invest.  Green  Bay  W.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  734,  738;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G 
1,  55;  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  291,  300-303 
Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485,  492 
Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634,  643;  Hughes  et  al.  v 
Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  669,  674-689;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo 
Mun.  W.  Sc  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534,  548. 


Depreciation. 

177.  Depreciation  apportioned  between  fire  and  general  service  on 
the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  property  devoted  to  each  service.  In  re  Appl. 
Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497,  535;  City  of  Janesville  v. 
Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  651;  Fitzgerald  et  al  v.  City  of  Toma- 
hawk, 1911,  8  R.  G.  40,  47;  Civic  League  et  al.  v.  Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  661,  681;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  G.  706,  766;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Neenah,  1912,  11  R.  C.  119, 


30     Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs 

123;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236,  254;  Rol- 
lins et  ai.  V.  Village  of  Montfort,  1913,  11  R.  C.  ^78,  285;  In  re  Appl.  Colum- 
bus W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449,  467;  In  re  Appl.  City  oj  Delavan, 
1913, 12  R.  C.  148,  151;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1913, 
12  R.  G.  194,203;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.&Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C. 
260,  312;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  C.  532,  542-543;  In  re 
Invest.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  734,  738;  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Water- 
town  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  669,  676. 

k.      WATER    UTILITIES. — Continued. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  over  output,  capacity  and  consumer 
expenses — Further  apportionment  among  the  different 
classes  of  service — Interest. 

178.  Interest  apportioned  between  fire  and  general  service  on  the 
basis  of  the  value  of  the  property  devoted  to  each  service.  In  re  Appl. 
Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  535;  City  of  Janesville  v. 
Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  651 ;  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Toma- 
hawk, 1911,  8  R.  G.  40,  47;  Civic  League  et  al.  v.  Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  661,  681;  Superior  Conunl.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  766;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Neenah,  1912,  11  R.  G.  119, 
123;  Rollins  et  al.  v.  Village  of  Montfort,  1913,  11  R.  G.  278,  285;  In  re 
Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  467;  In  re  Appl. 
City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  G.  148,  151;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W. 
&  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  203;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt. 
Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  312;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
532,  542-543;  In  re  Invest.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  734,  738; 
Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  669,  676. 

Taxes. 


179.  Taxes  apportioned  between  fire  and  general  service  on  the  basis 
of  the  value  of  the  property  devoted  to  each  service.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto 
City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497,  535;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville 
W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  651;  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk,  1911, 
8  R.  G.  40,  47;  Civic  League  et  al.  v.  Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C. 
661,  681;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  704,  766;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Neenah,  1912,  11  R.  G.  Il9.  123; 
Rollins  et  al.  v.  Village  of  Montfort,  1913,  11  R.  G.  278,  285;  In  re  Appl. 
Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  467;  In  re  Appl.  City  of 
Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  G.  148,  151;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt. 
'  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  203;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  260, 312;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913, 12  R.  G.  532,  542- 
543;  In  re  Invest.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  734,  738;  Hughes  et 
at.  D.  Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  669,  676. 

^ Apportionment   of   expenses    among    commercial  con- 


sumers. 

180.  The  size  of  the  service  connection  appears  to  be  a  reasonable 
basis  for  apportionment  of  the  capacity  expenses  among  the  various  con- 
sumers.    In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497,  561. 


Accounting. — Cost  accounting. — Determ.  of  unit  costs     31 

Apportionment  of  expenses  for  commercial  consumers 

between  metered  and  flat  rate  consumers. 

181.  Capacity  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
consumers.  Output  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  estimated 
consumption,  tity  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  W.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  273.  296; 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1.  68;  City  of  Marinette 
V.  City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911,  8  R.  C.  334,  374. 

Apportionment  among  flat  rate  consumers. 

182.  Apportionment  of  capacity  expenses  usually  made  on  the  basis 
of  the  demand  as  deterrnined  by  the  fixtures,  etc.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto 
City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  561-562;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janes- 
ville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  661-662. 


Apportionment  among  metered  consumers. 

183.  Capacity  expenses  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  size  of  the 
meters.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  562; 
City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  662. 

Apportionment  of  the  value  of  the  physical  property  among  the 
different  classes  of  service. 

184.  Value  of  the  physical  property  apportioned  between  general 
and  fire  service.  In  re  Appl.  Madison  City  W.  Wks.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  299, 
318-319;  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  W.  Cq.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  293;  City 
of  Ripon  V.  Ripon  Lt.  Sz  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  66;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson 
Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  578;  Dick  et  at.  v.  Madison 
W.  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  731,  757;  Kirwin  et  at.  v.  City  of  Darlington, 
1910,  6  R.  C.  26,  36;  City  of  Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910, 
6  R.  C.  74,  78;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187, 
310;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  535;  City 
of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R,  C.  628,  654;  Fitzgerald  et  at.  v. 
City  of  Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  C.  40,  44,  56-57;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City 
W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911,  8  R.  C.  334,  352;  Civic  League  et  at.  v.  Beaver 
Dam  W.  Co.,  1912, 10  R.  C.  661,  665;  Superior  Comml.  Clubet  at.  v.  Superior 
W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  764;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun. 
El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197,  201;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green 
Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236,  254;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt. 
Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449,  467;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  690.  691-692;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan,  1913.  12  R.  C.  148. 
151;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  194, 
202;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  276; 
In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  C.  532,  538-539;  In  re  Invest.  Ash- 
land Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1.  58;  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  Water  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  291,  300;  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
669,  674;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sc  El.  Plant,  1^14.  15  R.  C.  534, 
548. 

Apportionment  of  the  value  of  the  physical  property  among  the 
localities  served. 

185.  Property  in  joint  use  apportioned  between  Hurley  and  Iron- 
wpod.     Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  291,  297,  300. 


32  Accounting. — Uniform  accounts 

III.     UNIFORM  ACCOUNTS. 

a.    ELECTRIC   UTILITIES, 

Accounting  terms — Interpretation  of  terms  in  contract. 

186.  The  term  "actual  station  operating  costs"  as  used  in  a  contract 
between  utilities,  defined.  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &.  El.  Co.  et  al., 
1911,  8  R.  C.  18,27. 

ACTIVE  LOAD. 

Method  of  determining  active  load,  see  Rates — Electric,  1. 
Treatment  of  incidental  electrical  appliances  in  determining  active  load, 
see  Rates — Electric,  15-16. 

ADDITIONAL  CONSUMERS  ON  A  METER. 

Extra  dharge  where  more  than  one  consumer  of  water  is  supplied  through 
one  meter,  see  Minimum  Charges,  16;  Rates — Water,  1. 

ADDITIONAL  SERVICE. 

Not  necessary  that  each  branch  or  section  of  the  system  of  a  railroad  be 
self-supporting  before  additional  service  is  furnished,  .see  Rail- 
roads, 85-90. 

ADVANCE  IN  RATES. 

See  Rates. 

'     ADVANTAGE. 

See  Discrimination. 

ADVERTISEMENTS. 

Advertisements  in  telephone  directories,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  1. 

ADVERTISING  CAR. 

Free  transportation  of  advertising  car,  see  Rates — Railroad,  51. 

AESTHETIC  CONSIDERATIONS. 

Commission  without  power  to  require  the  expenditure  of  money  for 
aesthetic  purposes  in  the  construction  of  an  overhead  bridge  at  a 
railroad  crossing,  see  Railroad  Commission,  85. 

Purely  aesthetic  considerations  not  sufficient  ground  for  exercise  of  police 
power  by  municipality,  see  Electric  Utilities,  2. 


Appliances     33 


AGENT. 

Employment  of  agent  to  look  after  railroad  station,  see  Station  Facili- 
ties, 11. 

AGREEMENTS. 

See  Contracts. 


AGRICULTURAL  IMPLEMENTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 200. 

AIR  BRAKES. 

See  Brakes. 

ALLOWANCES. 

See  also  Rebates  or  Concessions. 

Car  stakes,  failure  to  make  allowance  for  weight,  as  ground  for  refund,  see 
Reparation,  107. 

Free  storage  of  freight,  allowance  of  additional  time  under  certain  condi- 
tions, see  Demurrage  Rules,  1-7;  Rates — Railroad,  42-45. 

Transit  privileges,  allowance  of,  see  Transit  Privileges,  1-12. 

ALTERNATIVE  TELEPHONE  RATES. 

See  Rates — Telephone,  77. 


^  ANUNCIATORS. 

Anunciators  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see  Railroads,  20. 


ANTE-DATED  TARIFF. 

Effect  of  ante-dating  railroad  tariff,  see  Rates — Railroad,  1. 

APPLIANCES. 

Rates  for  small  power  or  incidental  appliances,  see  Rates — Electric,  17. 
Treatment  of  electrical   appliances  in  determination   of  active  lighting 
load,   see   Rates — Electric,    15-16. 


34  Apportionment 


APPORTIONMENT. 

Apportionment  of  cost  of  subway  for  separation  of  grades,  see  Railroads, 
53. 

of  track  connection,  see  Switch  Connections,  11-12,  25. 

of  viaduct  for  separation  of  grades,  see  Railroads,  55. 
Apportionment  of  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for: 

Electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  8-30. 

Express  companies,  see  Accounting,  35-38. 

Gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  39-57. 

Heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  63-67. 

Interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  69-86. 

Joint  utilities,  see  Accounting,  89-118. 

Railroads,  see  Accounting,  127-135. 

Street  railways,  see  Accounting,  138-146. 

Telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  151-169. 

Water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  174-183. 
Apportionment  of  expenses  of  the  construction  of  bridges  used  by  high 

way  and  railroad,  see  Bridges,  1. 
Apportionment  of  expenses  of  making  extensions  of  water  mains  between 

utility  and  new  consumers,  see  Water  Utilities,  11-12. 
Apportionment  of  joint  rates  between  connecting  carriers,  see  Rates — 

Railroad,  70-71;  Railroad  Commission,  128. 
Apportionment  of  the  value  of  the  physical  property  in  the  determination 
of  unit  costs  for: 

Electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  31-32. 

Gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  58-60. 

Interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  87. 

Joint  utilities,  see  Accounting,  119-126.  ' 

Railroads,  see  Accounting,  136. 

Street  railways,  see  Accounting,  147-149. 

Telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  170-173. 

Water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  184-185. 

Method  of  apportionment.     . 

We  have  repeatedly  held  that  apportionments  and  separations  should 
be  made,  not  by  general  rule,  but  item  by  item,  applying  to  each  indi- 
vidual item  that  unit  which  most  accurately  fits  the  same.  Leonard  et  al. 
V.  W.  a  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  724,  729. 


APPRAISAL. 

Methods  of  appraisal  of  the  property  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 
129-164. 

APPRECIATION. 

Appreciation  of  land  values,  see  Valuation,  94-97,  124-125,  149-151. 


Bascule  Bridge  35 


APPROACHES. 

Highway  approaches  to  station,  see  Station  Facilities,  12. 
Improvement  of  highway  approaches  to  railroad  crossing,  see  Railroads, 
29. 

AUTOMATIC  CROSSING  ALARM. 

Installation  of  automatic  crossing  alarm,  see  Interurban  Railways,  1; 
Railroads,  20-23. 

AUTOMOPHONES. 

Rates  for  automophones,  see  Rates — Telephone,  1. 

AVERAGE  AGREEMENT. 

Reasonableness  of  rule  relating  to  average  agreement,  see  Demurrage 
Rules,  8. 

BACK  HAUL. 

As  element  affecting  concentration  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  26-30. 

BAGGAGE. 

Articles  constituting  personal  baggage,  see  Carriers,  3-4. 

BALANCE  SHEETS. 

As  matter  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 
17-20. 

BARB  WIRE,  STAPLES,  NAILS  AND  WIRE  FENCING. 

Reasonableness  of  rate  on,  see  Rates — Railroad,  297. 

BARK? 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  tanbark,  see  Rates — Railroad,  290. 

BARLEY. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  barley,  see  Rates — Railroad,  204,  230. 

BASCULE  BRIDGE. 

^  See  Bridges. 


36  Baskets 


BASKETS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  berry  boxes  and  baskets,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 205. 

BEANS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  peas  and  beans,  see  Rates — Railroad,  267. 

BEER. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  beer,  see  Rates — Railroad,  77. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer,  see  Rates — Railroad,  206. 

BEER  PACKAGES. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  empty  beer  packages,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
232. 

BEETS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  beets,  see  Rates — Railroad,  289. 

BELLS. 

Rates  for  telephone  extension  bells,  see  Rates — Telephone,  17. 

BELT  LINE. 

Use  of  belt  line  as  industrial  or  team  track  not  required  by  law,  see  Switch 
Connections,  28. 

BERRY  BASKETS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  berry  baskets  and  boxes,  see  Rates— Rail- 
road, 209. 

BILLING. 

Discrimination  due  to  billing  separate  premises  belonging  to  a  single 
owner  under  a  single  bill,  see  Discrimination,  12. 

Telephone  switching  charges,  bills  rendered  directly  to  connecting  rural 
companies,  see  Rules  and  Regulations.  41. 

BILLS  OF  LADING. 

Force  of  the  original  bill  of  lading  in  determining  the  interstate  or  intra- 
state character  of  switching  service,  see  Transportation,  4. 


Bolts  .37 


BINDER  TWINE. 

Classification  under  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad,  200. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  binder  twine,  see  Rates — Railroad,  294. 


BINS. 

Special  bins  in  grain  elevators  deemed  impracticable,  see  Warehouses,  5. 

BLANKET  RATES. 

r 

Group  or  blanket  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  52-61. 

BUNDS. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  blinds,  see  Rates — Railroad,  91. 

BLOCK  EXPRESS  RATES. 

See  Rates — Express,  16-17. 

BLOCK  SIGNAL  DEVICES. 

Manual  block  signal  system  for  street  railway,  see  Street  Railways,  18. 
Use  of  block  signal  devices,  see  Street  Railways,  18. 

BLOCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  granite  blocks,  see  Rates — Railroad,  242. 

BOATS. 

Definition  of. 

1.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  in  a  general  sense  a  boat  is  a  vessel, 
for  it  is  a  "vehicle  in  which  men  or  goods  are  carried  on  the  water,"  which 
is  one  of  the  definitions  of  a  ''vessel,"  given  in  our  lexicographies;  and 
one  of  the  definitions  of  a  "boat,"  given  in  a  like  manner,  is,  that  it  is  a 
"vessel  to  pass  the  water  in,"  or  "a  ship  of  small  size."  (United  States  v. 
Open  Boat,  1828,  27  Fed.  Gas.  346,  351)  Howey  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  504,  506. 

BOLTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  bolts,  see  Rates — Railroad,  207. 


38  Bonds 


BONDS. 

See  also  Stocks  and  Bonds. 

Allowance  for  discount  on  bonds  of  utility,  see  Valuation,  82-84. 

Interest  on  bonds  and  dividends  on  stock  of  railroad  company  appor- 
tioned between  intrastate  and  interstate  traffic  on  basis  of  miles  of 
road,  see  Accounting,  135. 

BOOK  VALUE. 

As  matter  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 
17-20. 

BOTTLES. 

onableness  of  rates  on  bottles,  see  Rates — Railroad,  208. 

BOX  SHOOKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  box  shocks,  see  Rates — Railroad,  210. 

BpXES. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  boxes,  see  Rate^ — Railroad,  209. 

BRAKES. 

Automatic  air  brakes,  installation  of  on  electric  railways,  recommended 
by  Commission  as  a  matter  of  safety  in  rendering  reasonably  ade- 
quate service,  see  Street  Railways,  30. 
Hand  brake,  adequacy  of  for  small-sized  street  cars,  see  Street  Rail- 
>  WAYS,  38. 

BRANCIL  LINE. 

Abandonment  of  Une  of  portion  thereof,  see  Railroads,  1,  74-77. 
Branch  line  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  11. 
Adequacy  of  branch  line  service,  see  Train  Service,  1-3. 
Operation  of  branch  line,  see  Railroads,  85-90. 

Power  of  Commission  to  order  operation  of  branch  line,  see  Railroad 
Commission.  131. 

BREAD  AND  CAKE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  bread  and  cake,  see  Rates — ^Express,  15. 

BREWERS'   GRAINS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
230. 


Butter  and  Eggs  39 


BRICK. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  brick,  see  Rates — Railroad,  211-212. 

BRIDGED  TELEPHONE  SERVICE. 

See  Rates — Telephone  62. 

BRIDGES. 

Bridge  used  by  highway  and  railroad — Safety  of. 

1.  Construction  of  new  bridge  ordered  by  the  Commission,  In  re 
West  Algoma  Street  Bridge  in  Oshkosh,  1912,  8  R.  C.  441.  Order  modified 
in  9  R.  C.  357. 

Toll  bridge — Safety  of. 

2.  Repairing  of  bridge  ordered  by  the  Commission.  City  of  Sturgeon 
Bay  V.  Sturgeon  Bay  Bridge  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  727. 

BUILDING  MATERIALS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  building  materials,  see  Rates — Railroad,  214, 
226. 

BUILDING  PURPOSES. 

Rates  for  water  for  building  purposes,  see  Rates — Water,  2. 

BULK  OF  COMMODITIES. 

Bulk  of  commodities  in  relation  to  weight  as  element  considered  in  mak- 
ing railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  151-152.. 
as    matter    considered    in    determining    reasonableness  of  railroad 
rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  194. 

BURNT  SAND. 

Reasonableness  of  rate  on  burnt  sand,  see  Rates — Railroad,  278. 

BUSINESS  RATES. 

Business  and  residence  rates  for  telephone  utilities,  see  Rates — ^Tele- 
phone, 3-7. 

BUTTER  AND  EGGS. 

See  also  Eggs. 

Establishment  of  concentration  rates  for  butter  and  eggs,  see  Rates — 

Railroad,  31-32. 
Labels  on  freight  packages,  regulations  for,  see  Labels. 


40  Cabbages 


CABBAGES. 

Railway  car  service  for  movement  of  crop,  see  Railroads,  80. 

CAKE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  bread  and  cake,  see  Rates — Express,  15. 

CALLING  CHARGES. 

Calling  charges  for  telephone  subscribers  not  having  direct  connection  with 
long  distance  lines,  see  Rates — Telephone,  75. 

CANDLE  POWER. 

Measurement  of  candle  power  in  testing  the  performance  of  street  lighting 
systems,  see  Electric  Utilities,  30. 

CANNED   GOODS. 

Reasonableness  of  switching  rates  for  canned  goods,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 312. 

CAPACITY  COSTS. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  34. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Rates — Gas,  6. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  40-46. 

CAPACITY  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  capacity  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for 
electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  8. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  44. 
for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  63. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  174-175.  ' 

CAPACITY  OF  CARS. 

Minimum  carload  weights  should  be  based  upon  practical  loading  ca- 
pacity of  cars,  see  Weights,  4-7. 

CAPITAL  STOCK. 

Interest  on  bonds  and  dividends  on  stock  of  railroad  company  apportioned 
between  intrastate  and  interstate  traffic,  on  basis  of  miles  of  road, 
see  Accounting,  134. 

Requirement  as  to  ownership  of  stock  by  telephone  subscribers,  see  Tele- 
phone Utilities,  64. 


Car  Storage  Area  41 


CAPITALIZATION. 

As  matter  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 

21. 
Capitalization  of  amount  claimed  due  for  past  services  rendered  by  utility, 

in  the  determination  of  the  value  of  property  of  public  utilities, 

see  Valuation,  22. 
Capitalization  not  usually  a  fair  index  of  a  reasonable  valuation,  see 

Valuation,  23. 
Franchise  values,  statutory  prohibition  against  capitalization  of  franchises 

granted  by  a  municipality  at  any  greater  sum  than  the  amount  paid 

therefore  into  the  public  treasury,  see  Valuation,  28-35. 
Monopoly  privileges  cannot  be  justly  capitalized  as  against  consumers, 

see  Valuation,  33. 
Public  utilities,  what  constitutes  a  reasonable  return  for  public  utilities, 

relation  of  return  to  capitalization,  see  Return,  18. 
Relation  of  nominal  return  to  capitalization,  addition  of  intangible  value 

to  capitalization,  see  Return,  14. 

CAR  MILEAGE. 

Empty  car  mileage  as  matter  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  126-127. 

CAR  SERVICE. 

Adequacy  of  ioterurban  car  service,  see  Interurban  Railways,  9,  14-19. 

of  street  car  service,  see  Street  Railways,  27-48. 
Preference  in  furnishing  cars,  see  Discrimination,  66-68,  85. 
Railway  car  service,  see  Railroads,  78-81. 

CAR     SERVICE    AND    DEMURRAGE     RULES. 

See  also  Demurrage  Rules. 

Shippers  responsible  for  demurrage  charges  due  to  failure  to  give  proper 
shipping  directions,  see  Reparation,  116. 

CAR  SERVICE  CHARGES. 

See  Demurrage  Charges. 

CAR  STAKES. 

Failure  to  make  allowance  for  car  stakes  as  ground  for  refund,  see  Repara- 
tion, 107. 

CAR  STORAGE  AREA. 

Limitation  of  car  storage  area  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see 
Railroads,  30. 


42  Caretaker 


CARETAKER. 

Employment  of  caretaker  to  care  for  station  building,  see  Station  Fa- 
cilities, 13. 

CARLOAD  FREIGHT. 

Charge  imposed  for  carload  freight,  but  not  for  less  than  carload  freight, 

see  Rates — Railroad,  50. 
Inadequate  track  facilities,  for  the  transfer  of  carload  and  less  than  carload 

freight,  see  Switch  Connections,  25. 

CARLOAD  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  12-14. 

CARLOAD  WEIGHTS. 

See  Weights. 

CARRIERS. 

See  also  Connecting  Carriers. 


I.  CARRIAGE  OF  GOODS. 
II.  CARRIAGE  OF  PASSENGERS. 
III.  CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  OF  COMMON  CARRIERS. 


I.  CARRIAGE  OF  GOODS. 

Loss  of,  or  injury  to  goods — Carrier  liable  as  insurer. 

1.  Common  carriers  are  considered  as  insurers,  and  are  under  that 
responsibility;  and  to  prevent  litigation,  and  avoid  the  necessity  of  going 
into  the  examination  of  matters  difficult  to  be  unraveled,  the  law,  very 
justly,  in  case  of  loss,  presumes  against  them.  The  rule  being  so  rigorous, 
they  are  entitled  to  demand,  and  do  demand,  a  compensation  for  their 
services  in  full  proportion,  at  least,  to  the  risks  incurred.  (Baldwin  v. 
American  Express  Co.  1859,  23  111.  202)  Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co. 
et  al,  1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  564. 

2.  Having  undertaken  to  carry  a  particular  kind  of  property  which 
requires  an  unusual  service,  common  carriers  must  receive  the  same  when 
offered  for  carriage,  provided,  of  course,  reasonable  notice  has  been  given 
to  them  so  that  they  may  be  prepared  to  furnish  the  necessary  equipment 
and  that  there  is  sufficient  traffic  of  the  character  to  warrant  the  service, 
but  they  cannot  impose  upon  the  shipper  a  contract  exempting  themselves 
from  their  legal  liabilities  as  common  carriers.  Ellman  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  C.  240.  247-248. 


Carriers. — Control  and  regulation  of  common  carriers     43 


II.  CARRIAGE  OF  PASSENGERS. 

Passengers'  effects — Articles  constituting  personal  baggage. 

3.  It  would  seem,  generally  speaking,  that  anything  that  is  ordinarily 
necessary  for  the  convenience  of  the  passenger  while  on  his  journey,  or 
which  is  essential  to  the  execution  of  some  temporary  employment  or 
pleasure  at  his  destination,  is  to  be  considered  baggage.  This  also  ac- 
cords with  the  view  taken  by  the  courts,  although  the  line  of  demarcation 
between  what  is  and  what  is  not  baggage  is  not  distinct.  Green  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
Si.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  115,  117. 

4.  The  rule  of  a  street  railway  company  requiring  folded  baby  car- 
riages or  carts  to  be  wrapped  or  covered  with  cloth  or  paper  when  offered 
as  baggage  by  passengers  is  unreasonable.  The  respondent  is  accordingly 
ordered  to  accept  folded  baby  carriages  or  carts  as  baggage  without  re- 
quiring them  to  be  wrapped  or  enclosed  in  cloth  or  paper.  Martin  v. 
S.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  311,  315. 


III.  CONTROL  AND   REGULATION    OF    COMMON    CARRIERS. 

Duty  of  carrier  to  furnish  certain  minimum  of  service  regardless  of  finan- 
cial conditions,  see  Railroads,  85-90. 

Power  of  state  to  regulate  rates  of  carriers,  see  Railroad  Commission, 
92-94. 

Duty  of  common  carriers  to  interchange  traffic. 

5.  The  Commission  can  compel  railway  companies  to  provide  reason- 
able facilities  for  the  interchange  of  traffic  between  their  respective  lines, 
but  has  no  authority  to  compel  interchange  of  traffic  between  land  and 
water  carriers.  City  of  Ashland  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915, 
15  R.  C.  816. 

6.  Under  the  provisions  of  section  1797-11  (ch.  362,  Laws  of  1905),  as 
amended,  it  is  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier  to  deceive  a  carload  shipment 
from  a  competing  carrier  and  switch  the  same  to  a  convenient  point  on 
the  team  track  of  the  receiving  carrier  for  a  reasonable  compensation,  at 
least  in  the  absence  of  any  showing  that  such  action  would  materially 
interfere  with  the  business  of  the  receiving  carrier.  Clark  v.  C.  M.  &  St. 
P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  733,  736. 

Duty  of  carrier  to  provide  station  facilities. 

7.  Section  1797-9  (sec.  9,  ch.  362,  Laws  of  1905),  makes  it  the  duty  of 
every  railroad  to  provide  and  maintain  adequate  depots  and  depot  build- 
ings at  its  regular  stations  for  the  accommodation  of  passengers,  etc.  It 
also  requires  the  maintenance  of  adequate  and  suitable  freight  depots. 
Pernj  v.A.Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  223,  230. 

Right  of  carriers  to  earn  operating  expenses  and  some  income. 

8.  Neither  the  legislature  nor  a  commission  may  make  a  rate  so  low 
as  to  deprive  the  carrier  of  its  ability  to  earn  its  operating  expenses  and 
some  income  on  its  investment,  because  such  action  has  been  held  to 


44     Carriers. — Control  and  regulation  of  common  carriers 

amount  to  deprival  of  the  carrier  of  its  property  "without  due  process 
of  law,"  and  also  of  the  "equal  protection  of  the  laws."  This  principle 
was  firmly  estalished  in  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418; 
Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Lt.  &  T.  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466;  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Thompkins,  176  U.  S.  167,  and  other  cases. 
Perry  v.  A.  iSc  W.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  223,  232. 

Who  are  common  carriers. 

9.  Whether  that  part  of  the  line  which  extends  from  Dunbar  to  Hil- 
bert  Lake  or  Fence,  as  this  place  is  sometimes  called,  is  in  every  respect 
a  common  carrier,  may  be  open  to  argument.  The  fact,  however,  that  it 
publishes  tariffs,  and  that  it  carriers  passengers  and  transports  freight 
for  the  public  over  the  line  which  it  maintains  and  operates,  probably 
places  it  in  the  position  of  a  common  carrier  for  the  purposes  of  this  com- 
plaint, as  well  as  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  services  which  it  renders. 
Harrison  v.  D.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  801,  804. 

Duty  of  railroad  to  carry  all  classes  of  traffic. 

10.  The  distinction  between  a  common  carrier  and  a  private  one  is, 
that  the  former  holds  himself  out  in  common — that  is,  to  all  persons  who 
choose  to  employ  him,  as  ready  to  carry  for  hire — while  the  latter  agrees 
in  some  special  case  with  some  private  individual  to  carry  for  hire.  The 
employment  of  a  common  carrier  is  a  public  one,  and  he  assumes  a  public 
duty,  and  is  bound  to  receive  and  carry  the  goods  of  anyone  who  offers. 
{Allen  V.  Sacrider,  37  N.  Y.  341,  342.)  Streveler  v.  Marathon  County  R. 
Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  831,  837,  838. 


Necessity  for  incorporation  as  a  common  carrier. 

11.  As  neither  the  Upham  Mfg.  Go.  nor  the  Copper  River  Land  Co. 
are  incorporated  as  common  carriers,  they  cannot  legally  be  compelled  by 
the  Commission  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  common  carrier.  Rib  River 
Land  Co.  v.  Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  at.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  739,  757. 


Private  concern  operating  a  spur  track  not  a  common  carrier. 

12.  If  the  railroad  spur  in  question  had  been  built  by  either  of  the 
manufacturing  companies  named,  as  a  private  enterprise,  such  company 
could  not  be  compelled  to  operate  it  as  a  common  carrier,  and  even  if  it 
assumed  to  perform  such  duties  for  a  time,  it  might,  whenever  it  saw  fit, 
discontinue  such  duties.  (Wellman  v.  R.  Connor  Co.,  115  Wis.  617,  621.) 
Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.  Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  at.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  739,  757. 

Railroad  companies  not  common  carriers  of  private  cars. 

13.  Many  court  decisions  have  been  rendered  in  which  established 
customs  have  received  the  sanction  of  law.  There  are  scores  of  such  de- 
cisions of  the  highest  courts,  but  we  can  find  nothing  in  these  which  would 
justify  us  in  holding  that  the  custom,  if  such  this  practice  may  be  called, 
oi  carrying  private  cars  has  the  force  of  law,  and  that  long  usage  has  made 
the  respondent  railway  company  a  common  carrier  of  such  cars.  Hall  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  118,  122,  123. 


Castings 45 

Railroad  declared  tp  be  common  carrier  over  entire  line. 

14.  As  the  company  issues  tarilTs  covering  practically  all  parts  of  its 
lines  and  performs  the  ordinary  duties  of  a  common  carrier  it  is  a  common 
carrier  over  its  entire  system.  Paxton  &  Lightbody  Co.  v.  Mattoon  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  531,  537. 

Railroad  declared  to  be  a   private  logging  road  and   not    a 

common  carrier. 

15.  The  line  in  question  was  operated  as  a  private  logging  railroad 
and  not  as  a  common  carrier.  The  Commission  is  therefore  without  juris- 
diction. Bolger  et  at.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  223, 
234-235. 


Railroad  ordered  to  operate  a  spur  track  as  a  common  carrier. 

16.  The  company's  chartered  duty  is  to  operate  a  public  highway  open 
to  the  use  of  all  who  desire  to  use  it  for  a  reasonable  compensation.  It  is 
not  organized  for  the  purpose  of  building  both  public  and  private  highways, 
nor  do  we  think  it  has  any  authority  to  build  a  private  highway.  A  spur 
track  built  to  an  industry  but  also  used  for  the  delivery  of  goods  to  other 
parties  by  the  carrier,  is  part  of  its  railw^ay  system.  Rib  River  Land  Co. 
V.  Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  at.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  739,  757  et  seq. 


"CARRIERS." 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  empty  cheese  boxes,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 221. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  empty  beer  packages,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
232. 

CARS. 

Charges  for  detention  of  cars,  see  Demurrage  Rules,  1-8. 

Minimum  carload  weights,  see  Weights. 

Number  of  cars  insufiicient  to  reasonably  accommodate  street  railway 

passengers,  see  Street  Railways,  27,  32-34. 
•.Order  of  Commission  requiring  street  railway  cars  to  be  kept  in  sanitary 
condition,  see  Street  Railways,  34. 

Ordering  and  furnishing  of  cars,  rules  as  to  minimum  loading  requirements, 
see  Weights,  13-22. 

Preference  in  distribution  of  various  sized  cars,  see  Discrimination,  68. 

"Spotting"  of  freight  cars  on  public  street,  see  Switch  Connections,  24. 

Standard  box  cars  not  required  under  certain  conditions,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  13. 

Transferring  or  moving  cars  from  one  line  to  another,  see  Switch  Con- 
nections, 25-28. 

CASTINGS. 

Reasonableness  of  rate  on  castings,  see  Rates — Railroad,  218. 


46  Cattle  Guards 


CATTLE   GUARDS. 

Installation  of  cattle  guards  for  protection  of  farm  crossing,  see  Railroads, 
24. 

CATTLE   STANCHIONS. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

CEDAR  POSTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cedar  posts,  see  Rates — Railroad,  272. 

CEMENT. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  cement,  see  Rates — Railroad,  78. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cement,  see  Rates — Railroad,  219. 

CENTRAL  OFFICE  EXPENSES. 

« 

Apportionment  of  central  office  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit 
costs  for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  59. 

CERTIFICATE     OF     PUBLIC     CONVENIENCE     AND 

NECESSITY. 

Amplication  for  certificate— Dismissed  in  particular  cases. 

1.  Electric  Utilities — In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Cashton,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
677;  In  re  Appl  Interstate  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  et  al,  1912,  10  R.  G.  603;  City  of 
Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  215. 

Railroads— 7/7  re  Appl.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  \^\\,1  R.  G.  741. 

Telephone  Utilities — In  re  Proposed  Exten.  Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  166;  In  re  Appl.  Sevastopol  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  524. 

Water  Utilities — In  re  Appl.  People's  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  G.  579. 

Granted  in  particular  cases. 

2.  Electric  Utilities — In  re  Appl:  Fox  R.  Millg.  &  P.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  552;  In  Re  Appl.  M.  L.  H.  <Sc  T.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  497. 

Railroads— /n  re  Appl.  Great  N.  R.  Co.,  1  09, 3  R.  G.  266;  In  re  Appl. 
Milw.  &  Fox  R.  Val.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  466;  In  re  Appl.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  637;  In  re  Appl.  F.  &  N.  E.  R.  Co.,  1911; 
7  R.  G.  755. 

Telephone  Utilities — In  re  Constr.  of  Tel.  Line  in  Town  of  Addison, 
Wash.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  766. 


Determination  as  to  necessity  for  railroad. 

3.  The  propriety  and  necessity  of  constructing  a  road  was  not  left  to 
be  determined  by  enterprising,  but  perhaps  ill-informed,  or  ill-advised 


Cheese  Boxes  47 


citizens,  or  by  those  seeking  by  threats  of  destructive  competition  to  levy 
tribute  upon  existing  roads,  but  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  accredited 
oflTicers  of  the  state,  who  should  act  for,  and  in  its  behalf,  in  determining 
whether  the  interests  of  the  state,  or  of  the  community  immediately 
affected,  would  be  promoted  by  the  building  of  a  road.  In  re  Appl. 
Milw.  Lt.  Ht.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  288,  289-290. 

Motion  for  continuance  of  hearing  on  application  for  certificate, 
denied. 

In  re  Appl.  Milw.  Lt.  Ht  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  288. 

Motion  for  dismissal  of  application  for  certificate,  denied. 

In  re  Appl.  Milw.  &  Fox  R.  Val.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  580. 

Power  of  Commission  respecting  certificate. 

4.  Commission  may  permit  amendment  of  application  for  certificate. 
In  re  Appl.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  637,  638. 

5.  As  the  law  now  stands,  the  Commission  has  no  authority  to  author- 
ize the  construction  of  a  portion  of  a  proposed  line  after  having  determined 
that  public  convenience  and  necessity  require  the  construction  of  the  entire 
line.  (Eastern  R.  Co.  of  Minn.  v.  McCord,  1908,  136  Wis.  249.)  In  re  Appl. 
Milw.  &  Fox  R.  Val.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  466,  475;  In  re  Appl.  Great 
N.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  266,  281. 

Purpose  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity  Law. 

6.  Historically  speaking,  the  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity  Law 
was  enacted  to  avoid  the  losses  and  excessive  burdens  upon  the  public 
which  have  resulted  from  needless  paralleling  of  railways,  of  which  the 
history  of  railways  in  the  United  States  affords  many  convincing  illustra- 
tions.   In  re  Appl.  Milw.  &  Fox  R.  Val.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  466,  474. 

CHARGES. 

See  Demurrage  Rules;  Minimum  Charges;  Rates;  Terminal  Charges. 

CHECKING  STATION. 

Establishment  of  checking  station,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  5. 

CHEESE. 

Joint  concentration  rates  on  cheese,  see  Rates — Railroad,  33. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cheese,  see  Rates — Railroad,  200. 
Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages,  see  Labels,  1. 

CHEESE  BOXES. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  empty  cheese  boxes,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

79. 
Reasonableness  of  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  221. 


48  Christmas  Trees 


CHRISTMAS  TREES. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  Christmas  trees,   see  Rates — Railroad,  222. 

CITIES. 

See  also  Municipalities. 

Consent  of  city  council  necessary  for  abandonment  of  street  railway  track 
constructed  under  franchise  granted  by  such  council,  see  Street 
Railways,  9-10. 
Power  of  cities  to  compel  the  common  use  of  tracks,  see  Street  Railways, 
3. 
to  control  their  streets,  highways  and  public  places  in  respect  to  the 
use  thereof  by  railways,   see  Railroads,    104-105;   Street 
Railways,  4,  8. 
to  prescribe  terms  for  construction  of  spur  tracks  over  city  streets 
and   other  public   places  within   their   corporate  limits,   see 
Switch  Connections,  13. 
with  respect  to  the  manner  of  construction  of  railway  crossings  within 
their  corporate  limits,  see  Street  Railways,  12. 
Power  of  granting  street  railway  franchises  vested  in  city  council,  see 
Street  Railways,  11. 

CITY  EQUITY  IN  MUNICIPALLY  OWNED  PLANT. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  water  plants,  see  Rates — 
Water,  34. 

CLAIMS  AGAINST  CARRIER. 

Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  over  claims  against  common  carrier  pre- 
sented by  shipper,  see  Railroad  Commission,  38. 

CLASS  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  15. 

CLASSIFICATION. 

Discrimination  as  between  consumers  of  a  class,  prohibited,  see  Discrim- 
ination, 7-9,  3.1. 


I.   IN   GENERAL. 
II.   BASIS  OF  classification.     . 
III.   CHANGE   IN   classification. 

IV.  classification  in  express  service. 
V.  classification  in  railroad  transportation. 
VI.  classification  in  telephone  service. 

VII.  JURISDICTION   of  COMMISSION. 


Classification. — in  railroad  transportation  49 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

Classification  is  necessarily  general. 

1.  Classification  and  minimum  weights  must  necessarily  rest  upon 
general  and  permanent  rather  than  upon  special  and  temporary  conditions. 
Crary  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  432,  439. 

II.  BASIS  OF  CLASSIFICATION. 

Cost  of  service  as  basis  of  classification  in  electric  rates. 

2.  The  rates  for  different  classes  of  service  or  of  consumers  should 
recognize  the  cost  of  the  service  to  these  classes.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit 
W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  367. 

III.  CHANGE  IN  CLASSIFICATION. 

Change  in  construction  placed  on  classification — Notice  to  .inter- 
ested shippers  by  carriers. 

3.  Where  a  certain  express  rate  had  been  charged  in  accordance  with 
the  construction  placed  on  the  classification  for  a  period  of  twenty  or 
twenty-five  years,  no  change  in  such  construction,  resulting  in  higher  rates, 
should  have  been  made  by  the  carrier  without  reasonable. notice  to  inter- 
ested shippers.    Gross  v.  U.  S.  Express  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  342,  345. 

Grounds  for  change. 

4.  Changes  in  rates  or  classification  which  have  the  effect  of  dis- 
turbing long  established  business  conditions  which  have  grown  up  in  re- 
liance upon  the  continuance  of  the  existing  system  of  rates  or  the  existing 
classification,  should  not  be  made  except  for  good  reasons.  {Wisconsin 
Box  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  605,  617.)  M. 
Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  1,  13. 

IV.  CLASSIFICATION  IN  EXPRESS  SERVICE. 

Reasonableness  of  classification  of  merchandise  under  which  a  multiple  of 
the  regular  merchandise  rates  is  charged  upon  certain  classes  of 
merchandise,  see  Rates — Express,  16. 

Basis  of  classification. 

5.  Uniformity  of  classification  throughout  the  country  is  highly  de- 
sirable, but  it  is  clear  that  such  uniformity,  to  be  practicable,  must  be 
based  upon  conditions  that  obtain  in  more  than  one  section  of  the  country. 
M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Sc  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  1,  9. 

V.  CLASSIFICATION  IN  RAILROAD  TRANSPORTATION. 

Features  determining  classification. 

6.  The  chief  features  in  determining  the  proper  classification  of  an 
article  are  the  space  occupied  for  each  one  hundred  pounds  of  the  article 
and  the  value  per  hundred  pounds  of  the  same.  Medford  Fruit  Package 
Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  44,  50. 


50  Classification. — in  telephone  service 


VI.  CLASSIFICATION  IN  TELEPH6NE  SERVICE. 

Classification  of  subscribers. 

7.  The  classification  of  telephone  subscril)ers  into  residence  and  busi- 
ness subscribers,  with  higher  rates  for  the  latter  than  for  the  former, 
is  lawful  and  permissible,  not  only  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  greater 
cost  of  providing  the  business  service,  but  also  because  of  the  coordinate 
principle  that  a  lower  residence  rate  is  necessary  in  order  that  a  sufficiently 
large  number  of  subscribers  may  be  secured  to  make  the  telephone  valuable 
to  business  subscribers.  In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  3 
R.  G.  521,  542;  Olson  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  440,  445;  Davis 
et  al.  V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1  09,  4  R.  C.  370,  372;  In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee-Sussex 
Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  465,  472. 

VII.  JURISDICTION  OF  COMMISSION. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over'  western  classification  insofar  as  it 
affects  intrastate  shipments,  see  Railroad  Commission,  107. 

CLIPPINGS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  clippings  and  other  waste  lumber  products, 
see  Rates — Railroad,  270. 

COAL. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  coal  see  Rates — Railroad,  223. 

COKE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  coke,  see  Rates — Railroad,  224. 

COLLATERAL  UNDERTAKING. 

Collateral  undertaking  of  a  public  utility  when  not  affecting  prejudicially 
the  reasonable  performance  of  its  duties  to  the  public,  see  Public 
Utilities,  7;  Telephone  Utilities,  1. 

COLLECTION  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  collection  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for 
electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  11. 

COLLECTION    OF    FREIGHT     CHARGES. 

Right  of  common  carriers  to  collec;t  on  delivery  and  receive  payment  at 
their  offices,  see  Railroads,  100. 


Combination  Rates  51 


COMBINATION  RATES. 

Combination  business  and  residence  rates  for  telephone  utilities,  discrim- 
inatory tendency  of,  see  Rates — Telephone,  6-7. 
Combination  rates  for  light. and  power  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  3. 

COMMERCIAL  CONDITIONS. 

See  also  Competition. 

As  a  factor  in  fixing  minimum  weights,  see  Weights,  3. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

109. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  180-181. 

COMMERCIAL   DOCK. 

Petition  for  use  of  a  private  commercial  dock  for  public  use,  dismissed, 
see  Station  Facilities,  9. 

COMMERCIAL  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  commercial  expenses  in  determination  of  unit  costs,  see 
Accounting,  12,  46. 

'  COMMISSION. 

See  Railroad  Commission. 

COMMODITIES. 

See  various  commodity  subject  headings. 

COMMODITY  RATES 

See  Rates — Railroad,  also  various  commodity  subject  headings. 

COMMON  CARRIERS. 

See  Carriers. 

COMMON  LAW. 

Railroad  Commission  Act,  provisions  declaratory  of  the  common  law,  see 
Railroad  Law,  4. 

COMMUTATION  RATES. 

See  Rates — Interurban;  Rates — Railroad;  Rates — Street  Railway. 


52  Commutation  Tickets 


COMMUTATION  TICKETS. 

Commutation  ticket  defined,  see  Tickets,  3. 

Facilities  for  purchasing  commutation  tickets,  see  Interurban  Rail- 
ways, 13;  Street  Railways,  35. 
When  issued  must  be  offered  impartially,  see  Discrimination,  54. 

COMMUTATION  ZONE  RATES. 

See  Rates — Street  Railway,  4. 

COMPARATIVE  DATA. 

As  element  considered  in  making  electric  rates,  see  Rates — Electric,  20."* 
As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

110-114. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  electric  rates,  see 

Rates — Electric,  69. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  182. 

COMPARISON    OF     OPERATING     STATISTICS. 

Com'^arison  of  operating  statistics  to  determine  efTiciency  of  operation 
of  electric  utility,  see  Rajes — Electric,  20,  69. 

w 

COMPENSATION. 

Compensation  for  property  of  public  utilities  in  case  of  municipal  acquisi- 
tion, see  Electric  Utilities,  4-11;  Water  Utilities,  13-14. 

Compensation  for  switching  service,  statute  permits  a  reasonable  charge 
to  be  made  for  the  service,  see  Switch  Connections,  27.^ 

What  constitutes  just  compensation,  see  Eminent  Domain,  2. 

COMPETITION. 

Competing  railroads  not  compelled  to  meet  each  other's  rates  on  traflfic 
moving  between  same  points.  Vesper  Wood  Mfg.  Co.  v.  G.  B.  Sc 
W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  442. 

Competition  between  railroads  and  interuran  railways,  reduced  rates  for 
competitive  points  not  unjust  discrimination,  see  Discrimination, 
55. 

Competition  between  shippers  as  matter  considered  in  determining  ade- 
quacy of  train  service,  see  Train  Service,  5. 

Competitive  conditions  as  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates, 
see  Rates — Railroad,  115-124. 

Competitive  conditions  as  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness 
of  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  183. 


Competition  53 


Competitive  risks  as  element  in  rate  of  interest  and  profits,  see  Return, 
41-42. 

Costs  of  building  up  the  business  resulting  from  competition,  see  Valua- 
tion, 49. 

Discrimination  between  shippers,  effect  upon  competitive  conditions,  see 
Discrimination,  70,  71. 

Good  will,  applies  to  competitive  enterprises  only,  see  Valuation,  56-58. 

Indeterminate  permit,  as  protection  against  competition  in  public  utility 
enterprises,  see  Indeterminate  Permit,  4-6. 

Joipt  railroad  rates  are  not  necessarily  made  to  meet  competition,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  67. 

Parallel  road,  determination  as  to  necessity  for,  competition  not  a  de- 
termining element,  see  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and 
Necessity,  3. 

Public  Convenience  and  Necessity  Law,  purpose  of,  to  prevent  destructive 
competition  and  rate  wars,  see  Certificate  of  Public  Conveni- 
ence AND  Necessity,  6. 

Rate  wars  between  competing  utilities  contrary  to  public  policy,  see 
Rates — Electric,  61. 

Telephone  utilities,  assumption  of  Public  Utilities  Law  that  telephone 
companies  are  subject  to  ordinary  laws  of  competition,  see  Tele- 
phone Utilities,  63. 

Competition  not  an  effective  regulator  in  the  public  utilities  field. 

1.  Competition,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  cannot  be  a  proper  regu- 
lator in  the  public  utility  field.  Competition  means  duplication  of  plants, 
excessive  fixed  and  operating  expenses  and  useless  outlay.  It  stands  for 
unnecessary  tearing  up  and  occupation  of  already  overcrowded  streets* 
and  alleys,  the  possible  duplication  of  services  on  customers'  premises  and 
for  many  other  inconveniences  and  costs.  In  re  Invest.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc 
L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541,  551. 

Duplication  of  plants — Theory  ^th  respect  to. 

2.  Position  of  the  Commission  with  respect  to  duplication  of  plants 
set  forth  in  the  following  decisions:  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  cfc  El.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  3;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Cashton,  1908,  2  R.  C.  677;  In  re 
Invest  Milw.  Ltg  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  544;  In  re  Appl.  Interstate  Lt.  &  P. 
Co.  €t  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  603,  610. 

Fusion  of  transportation  and  commercial  enterprises. 

3.  The  fusion  of  transportation  and  commercial  enterprises  is  in- 
evitably fraught  with  grave  dangers.  A  railway  company  cannot  always 
engage  in  a  private  competitive  enterprise  without  employing  its  railway 
as  an  instrument  of  aggression  against  its  commercial  competitors. 
Fulmer  v.  Wausau  Street  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  520,  529. 

Public  utilities  may  not  be  entirely  free  from  competition. 

4.  While,  as  a  rule,  public  utilities  have  less  competition  to  contend 
against  than  is  the  case  for  industries  generally,  they  are  not  entirely 
relieved  therefrom.     Hill  et  al,  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  708. 


54  Complaints 


COMPLAINTS. 

See  also  Procedure. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commissi  >n. 

1.  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  when  complaint  against  a  pubhc 
utility  is  filed  in  behalf  of  a  municipality,  but  without  express  authority 
from  the  municipality.  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Lt.  P.  <Sc  Rg.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  249. 

2.  Commission  not  limited  by  contents  of  petitioner's  complaint  in 
fixing  reasonable  rates.  Ringle  et  al  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  598,  599. 

COMPOSITE  LIFE. 

Of  electric  plant,  see  Depreciation,  28-34. 
Of  gas  plant,  see  Depreciation,  35-36. 
Of  street  railway,  see  Depreciation,  38-40. 
Of  telephone  plant,  see  Depreciation,  41-44. 
Of  toll  bridge,  see  Depreciation,  45. 
Of  water  plant,  see  Depreciation,  46-51, 

CONCENTRATION  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  26-41. 

CONCESSIONS. 

See  Rebates  or  Concessions. 

CONCRETE  BLOCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  concrete  blocks,  see  Rates — Railroad,  225. 

CONDUCTING  TRANSPORTATION. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  for  conducting  transportation  in  the  deter- 
mination of  unit  costs  for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  140. 

CONNECTED  LOAD. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  12,  27. 

CONNECTING  CARRIERS. 

Joint  or  through  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  63-102. 

Power  of  Commission  to  establish  joint  rates  between  carriers  in  cases 

where  there  is  no  mechanical  union  of  tracks  for  the  interchange  of 

traffic,  see  Railroad  Commission,  26. 


Connecting  Carriers  55 


Train  schedules,  adjustment  of,  between  connecting  carriers  to  provide 
for  interchange  of  traffic,  see  Train  Service,  14-16. 

Transfers,  interchange  of,  between  inter  urban  and  street  railway,  see 
Interurban  Railways,  18. 

Duty  of  railroad  companies  as  to  interchange  of  traflSc — Statu- 
tory requirements. 

1.  Sec.  1797-11  of  the  Wis.  Stats,  provides  that  all  railroads  shall 
afford  all  reason^le  and  proper  facilities  for  the  interchange  of  traffic 
between  their  respective  lines  for  forwarding  and  deUvering  passengers 
and  property.  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Hi.  &  P.  Co.  ei  al.,  1910, 
4  R.  C.  471,  473;  Teasdale  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  9  R.  C.  66,  70. 

Switching  service. 

2.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier  to  receive  a  carload  shipment 


from  a  competing  carrier  and  switch  the  same  to  a  convenient  point  on 
the  team  track  of  the  recei^ung  carrier  for  a  reasonable  compensation. 
Clark  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  733. 

Track  Connections. 

3.  Petition  for  track  connection  dismissed.  National  Mtg.  Co.  v. 
I.  C.  R.  Co.  ei  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  509. 

4.  Track  connection  ordered.  West  Salem  Can.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  254;  Gratiot  et  al.  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  tt  al., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  421. 

What  constitutes  connecting  lines — Distinction  between  physical 
connection  and  business  connection. 

5.  The  context  of  the  statutes,  in  which  the  terms  are  found,  usually 
indicates  whether  a  physical  connection  or  business  connection  is  intended. 
Citij  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  d:  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  471,  475. 

Mechanical    union  of  tracks  and  business  connections    not 

necessarily  concomitants. 

6.  The  relation  in  which  the  terms  are  used,  in  speaking  of  railroad 
transportation,  usually  indicates  whether  business  connection  or  physical 
connection  of  lines  is  intended.  The  mechanical  union  of  tracks  and 
business  connections  are  not  necessarily  concomitants.  City  of  Neenah 
V.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  Sc  P.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  4  R.  C.  471,  473. 

Railroad  lines  and  steamboat  lines. 

7.  In  accoraance  with  the  general  use  of  the  terms,  railroad  lines  and 
steamboat  lines  may  become  "connecting  carriers."  City  of  Neenah  v. 
Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  471,  475. 

Railroads  operating  roads  of  different  gauges. 

8.  Railroads  operating  roads  of  different  gauges  may  also  constitute 
connecting  lines  within  the  ordinary  meaning  of  those  terms,  though 
mechanical  union  of  tracks  and  interchange  of  cars  upon  their  tracks 
are  impossible.  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  471,  474. 


56  Connecting  Carriers 


What  constitutes  connecting  lines — Terminals  at  the  transfer 
point  may  be  at  a  distance  from  each  other. 

9.  Carriers  may  form  connecting  lines  for  the  purpose  of  interchange 
of  traffic  although  their  terminals  at  the  transfer  point  be  at  a  distance 
from  each  other  and  an  intervening  transfer  agency  be  required  to 
deliver  the  goods  from  one  carrier  to  the  other.  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis. 
Tr.  Lf.  Hi.  &  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  471,  473. 

CONNECTING  LINE  SWITCHING  CHARGES. 

See  Switching  Charges. 

CONNECTING  LINES. 

See  Connecting  Carriers. 

CONNECTIONS. 

Connections  between  carriers,  see  Connecting  Carriers,  1-9. 
Connections  for  passengers  of  street  railways,  see  Street  Railways,  48. 
Duty  of  railroad  company  to  provide  adequate  track  connections,  see 

Switch  Connections,  14-19,  27. 
Railroad  trains,  connection  at  junction,  see  Train  Service,  8,  14-16. 
Telephone  lines,  physical  connection  of,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  31-41. 

CONSTITUTION. 

Contract  whose  performance  depends  upon  the  continuance  of  a  franchise 
not  a  vested  interest  under  state  constitution,  see  Vested 
Interests,  1. 

Franchises,  subject  to  amendment  or  repeal  by  legislature  under  sec.  1, 
Art.  XI,  of  the  state  constitution,  see  Franchises,  7. 

CONSTRUCTION. 

Approval  of  specification  for  construction  of  railroad,  see  Railroads,  2. 
Continuous  construction  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities, 

see  Valuation,  75. 
Interest  during  construction  as  element  considered  in  valuation  of  public 

utilities,  see  Valuation,  90-91. 
Overhead  expenses  during  construction  as  element  in  the  valuation  of 

public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  103-106. 
Rates  for  water  for  construction  purposes,  see  Rates — Water,  2. 

CONSTRUCTION  MATERIAL. 

Reduced  rates  on  construction  material  for  manufacturing  plants,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  17. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  construction  material,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

214-226. 


Continuous  Construction  57 


CONSTRUCTION  OF  STATUTES. 

Public  Utilities  Law,  sections  construed,  see  Public  Utilities  Law. 
Railroad  Law,  sections  construed,  see  Railroad  Law. 
Stock  and  Bond  Law,  sections  construed,  see  Stock  and  Bond  Law. 
Water  Power  Law,  sections  construed,  see  Water  Power  Law. 

CONSUMER  CHARGES. 

See  Minimum  Charges. 

CONSUMER  COSTS. 

As    element    considered    in    determining    minimum    charge    for    electric 

utilities,  see  Minimum  Charges,  6. 
As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  34. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Rates — Gas,  6. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  40-46. 

CONSUMER  EXPENSES. 

See  also  Minimum  Charges. 

Apportionment  of  consumer  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs 
for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  8. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  44. 
for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  63. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  174-175. 

CONSUMPTION. 

Distribution  of  consumption  of  steam  by  months  for  heating  purposes, 
see  Heating  Utilities,  2. 

CONSUMPTION  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  consumption  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit 
costs  for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  13-14. 

CONTINUANCE. 

See  Procedure. 

CONTINUOUS   CONSTRUCTION. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  75. 


58  Continuous  Service 


CONTINUOUS  SERVICE. 

As][element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 

Electric,  22. 
Electric   utility   ordered   to   furnish   continuous   service,    see  Electric 

Utilities,  41. 
Telephone  utiUty  ordered  to  furnish  continuous  service,  see  Telephone 

Utilities,  46. 

CONTRACT  OF  SHIPMENT. 

Character  of  shipment,  whether  intrastate  or  interstate,  force  of  the 
original  bill  of  lading  in  determining  character  of  switching  service, 
see  Transportation,  4. 

Contract  for  different  rate  than  that  stated  in  the  published 
tariff. 

1.  The  fact  that  an  agent  of  a  railroad  company  may  have  quoted  a 
different  rate  to  a  shipper  than  the  one  provided  in  the  published  tariff 
is  no  ground  for  a  recovery  of  the  amount  the  shipper  was  obliged  to  pay 
in  excess  of  the  rate  so  quoted.  Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  u.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54,  55;  Barney  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.  et  aL,  1910, 
4  R.  C.  775,  776;  Osceola  Mill  &  Elevator  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P  Sz  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  291,  292;  Callaway  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1914,  13  R.  C.  694. 

Contract  to  waive  the  provision  of  the  statute  requiring  repara- 
tion claims  to  be  filed  w^ithin  six  months. 

2.  Any  claim  filed  wdth  the  Commission  after  six  months  have  elapsed 
from  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  shipment  at  destination,  is  barred  by 
the  statute.  The  statute  cannot  be  waived  by  agreement  of  parties. 
Sinaiko  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  426.  428. 

Mistake  in  quoting  rate. 

3.  Errors  in  billing,  or  erroneous  quotations  of  rates  by  agents  of 
railway  companies,  do  not  relieve  the  shipper  of  the  obligation  of  paying 
the  lawful  rates  prescribed  in  the  published  tariffs,  nor  are  the  railway 
companies  for  any  such  reasons  permitted  to  exact  less  than  such  rates. 
Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54,56; 
Mayer  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  268;  Barney  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  775,  777;  Wheeler-Timlin  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  434. 

CONTRACTORS. 

1.  The  Commission  has  no  jurisdictioq  over  the  authorization  of 
contractors  to  do  work  or  over  their  dealings  with  private  parties.  Free- 
holders etc.  of  Dodge  County  v.  McWilliams,  1914,  13  R.  C.  603,  605. 


Contracts  59 


CONTRACTS. 

Commission  not  authorized  to  pass  upon  validity  of  private  contracts 
entered  into  by  public  utilities  with  their  patrons,  see  Railroad 
Commission,  42. 

Contract  between  municipality  and  another  party  providing  for  the 
pumping  of  water  does  not  relieve  municipal  "v^^ater  plant  of  its 
duty  as  a  public  utility,  see  Water  Utilities,  25. 

Contract  between  a  municipality  and  an  individual  or  corporation  for 
the  pumping  of  water  or  furnishing  street  lighting  does  not  confer 
.a  public  utility  franchise  upon  such  individual  or  corporation,  see 
Franchises,  3. 

Contract  between  private  concern  and  railroad  company  regarding  the 
use  of  a  spur  track  as  a  private  highway,  discriminatory,  see  Dis- 
crimination, 79;  Railroads,  76. 

Contract  between  two  telephone  companies  dividing  territory  in  which 
they  render  service  is  valid,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  44. 

Contract  whose  performance  depends  upon  the  continuance  of  a  fran- 
chise not  a  vested  interest  under  state  constitution,  see  Vested 
Interests,  1. 

Contractual  relations,  payments  of  rates  for  services  rendered  by  public 
utility  to  be  uniform  without  reference  to  contractual  relations  be- 
tween utility  and  its  customers,  see  Rules  and  Regulations,  9. 

Exceptions  respecting  public  utility  contracts  provided  in  section  1797/n- 
91,  do  not  apply  to  indefinite  subscription  agreements,  see  Rates — 
Telephone,  10. 

Interpretation  of  accounting  terms  in  contract,  see  Accounting,  186. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  contracts  between  connecting  carriers, 
see  Railroad  Commission,  43. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  public  utility  rates  established  by  con- 
tract, see  Railroad  Commission,  42. 

Liability  of  carrier  as  insurer,  limitation  of,  by  contract,  see  Carriers,  2. 

Power  of  Commission  to  make  an  order  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  an 
existing  franchise,  see  Franchises,  8-9, 

Power  of  Commission  to  vary  a  rate  fixed  in  a  special  franchise  granted 
by  a  municipality  to  a  street  railway  company,  see  Railroad  Com- 
mission, 132. 

Signing  of  yearly  contracts  for  protection  of  telephone  utility,  see  Rates — 
Telephone,  12. 

Special  contracts  for  electric  service,  when  void  as  against  public  policy, 
see  Rates — Electric,  4.  ' 

Status  of  contract  entered  into  by  telephone  company  and  railroad  com- 
pany, providing  that  the  railroad  company  may  use  only  the  tele- 
phones of  the  contracting  telephone  company,  see  Station  Facili- 
ties, 32. 

Status  of  special  rates  provided  for  in  contracts  entered  into  before  the 
passage  of  the  Public  UtiUties  Law,  see  Rates — Telephone,  10-11. 


60  Contracts 


Agreement  to  enter  into  contract  at  fiiture  time.  ^ 

1.  It  is  elementary  that  the  agreement  to  enter  into  a  contract  at 
some  future  time  in  order  to  be  legally  effective  must  be  definite  in  all  its 
terms  and  leave .  nothing  for  determination  to  future  negotiations.  It 
must  be  certain  in  its  provisions  or  capable  of  being  rendered  certain  upon 
the  happening  of  events,  which  are  not  the  result  of  future  negotiations. 
City  of  Green  Baij^v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  715,  723.     , 

Breach  of  contract — Damages  for. 

2.  The  Commission  is  not  a  court  and  therefore  has  no  authority  to 
award  damages  for  breach  of  contract  entered  into  by  pubic  utilities  with 
their  patrons.     Bereml  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  154. 

Construction  of  contracts. 

3.  The  construction  of  contracts  is  not  a  matter  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Commission.  The  courts  must  be  relied  upon  for  settling  all 
disputes  arising  out  of  contractual  relations.  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland 
Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  300. 

Contracts  entered  into  prior  to  enactment  of  Public  Utilities  law. 

4.  Contracts  made  prior  to  April  1,  1907,  are  excepted  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  statute,  although  they  be  discriminatory  in  fact.  Over  such 
contracts  the  Commission  has  no  control.  They  are  binding  until  their 
expiration.  National  Travelers'  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  678,  687-688. 

r 

Contracts  entered  into  subsequent  to  enactment  of  Public  Utilities 
Lavr, 

5.  Contracts  entered  into  subsequent  to  the  enactment  of  the  Public 
Utilities  Law,  contravening  the  provisions  of  such  law,  are  void.  National 
Travelers'  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  678,  688. 

Contract  for  service  and  facilities. 

6.  The  form  of  contract  is  primarily  a  matter  within  the  power  and 
discretion  of  the  utility.  The  Commission  has  no  power  to  interfere  with 
it  unless  its  terms  are  contrary  to  good  public  policy  and  transgress  the 
statutory  provisions  relating  to  service  and  rates.  Davi^  et  at.  v.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  370,  373. 

Contracts  for  telephone  service  and  facilities— Contracts  due  to 
monopoly  conditions. 

7.  It  may  be  inferred  that  the  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  can  exact  such  charges 
and  conditions  because  of  monopoly  conditions,  or  because  it  owns  or 
controls  the  greater  portion  of  the  more  important  toll  fines  in  the  state. 
The  effectiveness  of  contracts  for  the  use  of  equipment  is  more  likely  to 
depend  upon  monopoly  conditions  than  upon  superior  qualities  or  greater 
efficiency,  and  may,  therefore,  be  contrary  to  public  policy.  Connor  et  at. 
V.  Marsh  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  589,  603-604. 


Cost  of  Service  61 


Waiver  of  right  to  damages  under  public  service  contracts. 

8.  Where  the  city  paid  its  bills  subject  to  the  express  stipulation  that 
all  of  its  rights  under  the  contract  were  reserved  it  sufficiently  apprised 
the  utility  company  of  its  unwillingness  to  accept  the  service  furnished 
as  a  complete  service.  Such  an  express  reservation  of  rights  is  sufficient 
to  prevent  the  establishment  of  a  waiver.  (Olson  v.  Mayor,  1883,  56  Wis. 
551,  556.)  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912, 
8  R.  C.  586,  676. 

CONVENIENCE  AND  NECESSITY. 

See  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 

COOKING  RATES. 

Rates  for  electrical  cooking  and  heating,  see  Rates— Electric,  5. 

CORDWOOD 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cordwood,  see  Rates — Railroad,  298. 

CORN. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  green  corn,  see  Rates — Railroad,  227. 

COST  ACCOUNTING. 

See  Accounting.  . 

COST  OF  BUILDING  UP  THE  BUSINESS. 

Net  cost  of  building  up  the  business,  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public 
utilities,  see  Valuation,  45-55. 

COST  OF  REPRODUCTION  NEW. 

As  basis  of  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  71-116. 
As  matter  consi  'ered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 
.145-160. 

COST  OF  SERVICE. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  21-42. 
for  express  companies,  see  Rates — Express,  3-4. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Rates — Gas,  3-8. 
for  railroads,  see  R\tes — Railroad,  125-134. 
for  street  railways,  see  Rates — Street  Railway,  8. 
for  telephone  utilities,  see  Rates — Telephone,  32-33. 
for  toll  i)ridges,  see  Rates — Toll  Bridge,  1. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  28-48. 


62  Cost  of  Service 


'As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  electric  rates,  see 
Rates — Electric,  71-72. 

of  express  rates,  see  Rates — Express,  7-14. 

of  gas  rates,  see  Rates^ — Gas,  12. 

of  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  184. 

of  street  railway  rates,  see  Rates — Street  Railway,  15-16. 

of  telephone  rates,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  51-53. 

of  water  rates,  see  Rates — Water,  72-73. 
Determination  of  unit  costs  for  electric  utilities,  se^  Accounting,  8-34. 

for  express  companies,  see  Accounting,  35-38. 

for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  39-62. 

for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  63-68. 

for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  69-88. 

for  joint  utihties,  see  Accounting,  89-126. 

for  railroads,  see  Accounting,  127-137. 

for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  138-150. 

for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  151-173. 

for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  174-185. 
Discrimination  between  customers  of  electric  utility  due  to  failure  to  ob- 
serve difference  in  cost  between  long  and  short-hour  use  of  current, 
see  Discrimination,  15. 

COURTS. 

Judicial  review  of  orders  of  Commission,  question  of  unreasonableness  or 
unlawfulness  of  order,  see  Railroad  Commission,   108-109. 

CREAM. 

Adequacy  of  train  service  for  shipment  of  milk  and  cream,  see  Train 

Service,  9. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  milk  and  cream,  see  Rates — Railroad,  258. 

CREAM  SEPARATORS. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  impleniients,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

CRENOTHRIX. 

Valuation  of  water  plant,  depreciation  due  to  crenothrix  as  element  in 
valuation,  see  Valuation,  121. 

/ 

CROSS  CONNECTIONS. 

Cross  connections  for  water  mains,  see  Water  Utilities,  35. 

CROSSINGS. 

See  Interurban  Railways;  Railroads;  Street  Railways. 


Dams 68 

CROSS-OVER  TRACK. 

See  Track  Connections. 

CROSS-TOWN  LINES. 

Street  railway  company  ordered  to  operate  through  cars  to  down- 
town district  from  cross-town  lines.  Twenty-second  Ward  Adv.  Assn.  v. 
T.  M:  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  788. 

CRUSHED  STONE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates^on  crushed  stone,  see  Rates — Railroad,  228,  244. 

CUCUMBERS. 

Establishment  of  concentration  rate  on  cucumbers  and  onions,  see  Rates- 
Railroad,  34. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cucumbers,  see  Rates — Railroad,  229. 

* 

CULVERTS. 

Reconstruction  of  culverts,  maintenance  by  railroad  company  in  order 
to  protect  adjacent  land,  see  Railroads,  59. 

CUMULATIVE  BILLING. 

Discrimination  due  to  billing  separate  premises  belonging  to  a  single 
owner  under  a  single  bill,  see  Discrimination,  12. 

DAMAGES. 

See  also  Injuries  and  Damages. 

Commission  without  authority  to  award  damages  for  breach  of  contract, 
see  Contracts,  2. 

Commission  without  authority  to  award  damages  due  to  negligence  of 
carrier,  see  Railroad  Commission,  116. 

Damages  to  owner  of  joint  property  as  element  considered  in  determining 
purchase  price  of  public  utility,  see  Valuation,  25. 

Waiver  of  right  to  damages  under  public  service  contracts,  see  Con- 
tracts, 8. 

DAMS. 

See  NA^  igable  Waters;  Water  Powers. 


> 


64  ■  ''Dead  Weighf 


a 


DEAD   WEIGHT" 


As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  railroads,  see  Rates — Rail-   , 

ROAD,   151-152. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 

Rates— Railroad,  187,  189,  194. 
Proportion  of  "dead  weight"  in  carload  as  compared  to  less  than  carload 

freight,  see  Rates — Railroad,  12. 

DEALER'S  LICENSE. 

See  License. 

DEFINITIONS. 

See  specific  headings. 

DELAYS. 

Free  time,  allowance  for  delays,  see  Demurrage  Rules,  1-8. 
Unnecessary   delays   as   a  result   of  inadequate  track   connections,   see 
Switch  Connections,  25,  27. 

DELEGATION  OF  LEGISLATIVE  POWER. 

When  action  of  legislature  is  not  a  delegation  of  power. 

1.  Action  of  legislature  in  authorizing  administrative  body  to  de- 
termine the  facts  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  rates  is  not  a  delegation  of 
legislative  power.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  324,  337- 
345. 

DELIVERY  AT  DESTINATION. 

Discrimination  between  different  transfer  companies. 

1.  Receivers  of  freight  have  the  right  to  designate  the  person  who  shall 
teafn  their  goods  from  the  depot,  and  delivery  orders  given  by  them  should 
be  strictly  observed  and  regarded  as  private  communications.  Cohn  v.  C. 
&  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  569,  576-578. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  delivery  of  interstate  shipments 
upon  their  arrival  within  the  state. 

2.  It  seems  that  the  power  of  the  state  to  make  regulations  for  the 
delivery  of  interstate  shipments  upon  their  arrival  within  the  state  comes 
within  the  second  class  of  state  legislation  as  classified  in  Covington  etc. 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  1894,  154  U.  S.  204.  Within  this  class  fall  those 
state  enactments  which  were  passed  under  the  police  power  of  the  state 
in  the  absence  of  congressional  action  upon  the  subje  t,  and  "which  are 
local  in  their  operation,  although  they  may  incidentally  affect  interstate 
commerce."  Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  556, 
572-573. 


Delivery  Service  Limits  65 

Necessity  of  making  personal  delivery — Duty    of    telegraph    com- 
panies. 

3.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  telegraph  company  which  receives  a  message  for 
transmission,  directed  to  an  individual  at  one  of  its  stations,  to  deliver  that 
message  to  the  person  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  with  reasonable  diligence 
and  in  good  faith.  That  is  a  part  of  its  contract,  implied  by  taking  the 
message  and  receiving  payment  therefor.  (Western  Union  Telegraph  Co. 
V.  James,  1896,  162  U.  S.  650.)  Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  573. 

Place  of  delivery  and  necessity  of  making  personal  delivery — Duty 
of  express  companies. 

4.  In  its  application  to  express  companies  the  rule  that  there  must  be 
an  actual  delivery  to  the  proper  person  at  his  residence  or  place  of  business, 
is  probably  not  without  its  exceptions  in  certain  jurisdictions.  Strauss  v. 
American  Express  Co.  et  al.y  1909,  3  R.  G.  556,  563. 

DELIVERY  BY  CARRIER. 

Place  of  delivery  and  necessity  of  making  personal  delivery — duty  of  ex- 
press companies,  see  Delivery  at  Destination,  4. 

I 

DELIVERY  SERVICE. 

Express  delivery. 

1.  Delivery  service  by  express  companies  is  not  free.  It  is  a  part  of 
the  service  covered  by  the  rate.  Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  570. 

DELIVERY  SERVICE  LIMITS. 

Express  delivery  limits. 

1.  No  injustice  will  be  done  to  express  companies  by  requiring  them 
to  extend  equal  service  to  all  inhabitants  residing  in  a  municipality  where 
they  maintain  messengers,  wagons  and  horses  for  collecting  and  delivering 
goods.    Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  at.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  556,  570. 

2.  There  must  be  some  limits  to  the  area  within  which  express  com- 
panies may  be  required  to  deliver  express  and  the  boundaries  of  the  muni- 
cipality are  most  satisfactory  for  this  purpose.  (Strauss  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.  1909,  3  R.  C.  556.)  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Exp.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  594,  596. 

Must  not  be  arbitrary, 

3.  While  it  is  true  that  some  territorial  limits,  within  which  only  the 
duty  of  collecting  and  delivering  goods  may  prevail,  must  of  necessity  be 
prescribed  at  places  where  messengers  and  wagons  are  maintained  for  the 
purpose,  nevertheless,  in  fixing  such  limits  care  must  be  taken  that  no 
undue  or  unjust  disrcimination  between  customers  shall  result  as  a  conse- 
quence thereof.  Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  556, 
568-569. 


66  Demand 


DEMAND. 

Assessment  of  maximum  demand,  discrimination  in  assessment,  see  Dis- 
crimination, 10. 
Method  of  determining  demand,  see  FIates — Electric,  6. 

DEMAND  FACTOR. 

As  element  considered  in  making  electric  rates,  see  Rates — Electric,  27. 
Relation  of  demand  to  capacity  of  plant,  see  Electric  Utilities,  17. 

DEMURRAGE  RULES. 

Reasonableness  of  demurrage  charges  for  delays  caused  by  failure  of  rail- 
road company  to  properly  fulfill  its  agreement  to  provide  certain 
track  facilities,  see  Reparation,  118. 
caused  by  floods,  see  Rates — Railroad,  42.' 

caused  by  infrequent  mail  service,  or  inclement  weather,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  44. 
Refund  of  demurrage  charge  accrued  through  negligence  of  carrier,  see 
Reparation,  117. 
due  to  failure  of  shipper  to  give  proper  shipping  directions,  see 

Reparation,  116. 
ordered  on  basis  of  free  time  allowance  under  statute,  see  Repara- 
tion, 119. 
Shippers  responsible  for  demurrage  charges  due  to  failure  to  give  proper 
shipping  directions,  see  Reparation,  115. 

Time   allowed  for   unloading — -Allowance   of  additional   compen- 
satory time. 

1.  To  allow  additional  compensatory  time  for  the  time  consignee  is 
deprived  of  access  to  the  cars,  would  result  in  discrimination  and  rebates 
of  the  worst  character,  which  would  be  difficult  to  detect  and  more  difficult 
to  prove.  The  demurrage  rules  now  in  effect  are  adequate  in  most  in- 
stances and  equalize  fairly  well  the  loss  of  shippers  and  railroads  occasioned 
by  delays  in  unloading  cars.  Allen  IJ)r.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.j 
1910,  6  R.  C.  14,  16-17. 

Free  time  allowance — Modification  under  statute. 

2.  Section  1797-10/n  of  the  Wis.  Statutes  which  in  substance  provides 
that  carload  freight  must  on  the  average  be  moved  seventy-five  miles  per 
day,  ordered  suspended  for  thirty  days  insofar  as  sugar  beet  traffic  was 
concerned.  In  re  Appl.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  101,  103; 
In  re  Appl.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  129,  130. 

Note. — Orders  revoked  shortly  after  being  issued.  In  re  Appl.  C.  M.  <fr  St.  P. 
R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  8  R.  C.  278. 


3.  As  the  delay  in  unloading  after  receipt  of  the  shipment  by  the  con- 
signee was  less  than  the  time  the  shipment  was  in  transit  in  excess  of  the 
statutory  allowance,  the  demurrage  charge  exacted  of  the  petitioner  was 
illegal.    Krull  Comm.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  60,  61. 


Depreciation  67 


Adequacy  of  present  rules. 

4.  The  demurrage  rules  now  in  effect  are  adequate  in  most  instances 
to  equalize  fairly  well  the  loss  of  shippers  and  railroads  occasioned  by  de- 
lays in  unloading  cars.  Allen  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
6  R.  G.  14,  17. 

Free  time  allowance  for  delays. 

5.  It  would  seem  advisable  for  the  railway  companies  to  amend  the 
demurrage  rules  to  make  allowances  for  delays  in  unloading  cars  which  are 
occasioned  by  the  failure  of  the  railway  company  to  provide  promised 
track  facilities  within  the  time  agreed  upon  with  shippers.  Greiling  Bros. 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  449,  453. 

6.  Recommended  that  roads  operating  in  Wisconsin  who  are  members 
of  the  Wis.  Demurrage  Bureau  put  into  effect  a  rule  providing  for  addi- 
tional free  time  allowance  when  delay  is  due  to  infrequent  mail  service  or 
prohibitive  conditions  brought  about  by  the  weather.  Albright  et  al.  v. 
C.  St.  P:  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  763. 

7.  Recommended  that  roads  operating  in  Wisconsin  who  are  members 
of  the  Wis.  Demurrage  Bureau  put  into  effect  a  rule  providing  for  allow- 
ance of  additional  free  storage  to  patrons  in  proportion  of  their  distance 
from  the  railroad  station.  Buckman  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
405. 

Reasonableness  of  rules — Rule  relating  to  average  agreement. 

8.  The  provision  that  seven  days'  credit  may  apply  in  cancellation 
of  debits  accruing  on  any  one  car  appears  somewhat  excessive  and  five 
days  is  deemed  a  reasonable  allowance.  A  change  in  the  classification  of 
cars  should  also  be  made  to  meet  present  traffic  conditions.  It  is  ordered 
that  rule  9  be  changed  in  accordance  with  the  requirements.  Order  not 
confined  to  pulp  wood  traffic,  but  made  general  in  its  application.  In  re  Car 
Service  and  Demurrage  Rules,  1911,  8  R.  G.  579,  580-581. 

DEPOSITS. 

Regulations  as  to  payment  of  rates  for  services  rendered  by  public  utility, 
requirement  of  money  deposit,  see  Rules  and  Regulations,  21-26. 

DEPOTS. 

See  Station  Facilities. 

DEPRECIATION. 

Apportionment  of  depreciation  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for 
electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  15. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  47-48. 
for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  64. 
for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  79. 
for  joint  utilities,  see  Accounting,  98-100. 
for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  160. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  177. 


68  Depreciation 


As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  76-81. 

Depreciation  due  to  crenothrix,  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  water  utili- 
ties, see  Valuation,  121. 

Depreciation  in  value  of  land,  see  post,  1. 

Duty  of  Commission  to  allow  for  depreciation  in  passing  upon  rate  schedules 
of  public  utilities,  see  Railroad  Commission,  16. 

EUmination  of  depreciation  as  element  in  making  rates  for  municipal 
utilities,  discrimination  in  favor  of  consumers  as  against  taxpayers, 
see  Discrimination,  45. 

I.  IN  GENERAL.  III.  DEPRECIATION  RESERVE 

II.  DEPRECIATION  FUND.  CHARGE. 

IV.  RATES  OF  DEPRECIATION. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

Nature  of  depreciation. 

1.  Depreciation  is  an  item  that  is  always  present  in  public  utilities. 
Practically  all  parts  of  the  physical  property  of  the  plants,  outside  of 
perhaps  the  land,  begin  to  deteriorate  as  soon  as  the  plant  is  ready  for 
operation,  and  this  deterioration  continues  until  the  property  becomes 
useless.  Part  of  this  deterioration  is  due  to  wear  and  tear,  and  part  of 
it  is  due  to  natural  causes,  such  as  the  elements,  etc.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo 
Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  642-643;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  &  El. 
Co.,  1.907,  2  R.  C.  3,  11;  7/2  re  Appl.  Cumberland  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909, 

4  R.  C.  214,  217;  State  Journal  Prig.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  559;   Ross  et  al  v.  Burkhardt  Mllg.  &  El.  P.  Co.,  1910, 

5  R.  C.  139,  143;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  482,  515; 
In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  560; 
City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  132,  137. 

2.  Depreciation  may  be  described  as  the  amount  that  must  be  regular- 
ly set  aside  to  cover  wear  and  tear,  etc.,  in  order  to  keep  the  original  in- 
vestment intact.  It  is  an  operating  expense  and  should  be  borne  by  the 
customers  through  the  rates  paid  by  them  for  the  services  rendered  by  the 
utiUty.    Hillet  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  641. 

3.  Depreciation  rnight  be  defined  as  the  amount  which  makes  up  the 
difference  between  the  value  of  the  plant  at  any  period  after  construction, 
although  kept  in  good  running  condition  by  ordinary  repairs,  and  the  orig- 
ingal  cost  value  of  the  plant.  In  re  Appl.  Cumberland  and  Mun.  El.  Lt. 
Plant,  1909,  4  R.  C.  214,  217. 

4.  Depreciation  does  not  represent  actual  expenditure,  but  the 
amount  properly  reserved  to  offset  the  loss  in  value  occurring  to  the  oper- 
ating plant.  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  302,  328. 

5.  Depreciation  is  an  element  of  expense  just  as  much  as  wages,  fuel, 
supplies  or  any  other  element  which  is  ordinarily  charged  to  the  operation 
or  maintenance  of  the  plant.  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W. 
Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  560. 

6.  It  seems  that  the  loss  from  discontinuing  all  use  of  certain  portions 
of  the  property,  with  the  introduction  of  a  higher  grade  of  service,  is  such 


Depreciation. — Depreciation  fund 69 

a  loss  as  should  be  provided  for  in  the  setting  aside  of  a  depreciation  re- 
serve.   King  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  517,  521. 

Necessity  of  allowance  for  depreciation. 

7.  Losses  due  to  depreciating  value  and  efficiency  must  be  made 
good  by  regular  renewals  of  the  property  if  the  investment  is  to  be  kept 
intact  and  the  efficiency  of  the  service  maintained.  The  cost  of  depre- 
ciation is  by  its  nature  an  operating  expense  and  should  be  borne  by  the 
consumers  in  the  form  of  rates  that  are  high  enough  to  cover  this  cost. 
In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  194,  200; 
In  re  Appl.  J.  L.  Ball,  1907,  2  R.  C.  105,  112;  State  Journal  Prig.  Co.  et  al. 
V.  Madison  Gas.  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  599;  Cunningham  et  al.  v. 
Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  cfc  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C;  302,  328;  In  re  Appl. 
Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  560;  City  of  Milwaukee 
V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  216;  Rollins  et  al.  v.  Village  of 
Montfort,  1913,  11  R.  G.  278,  283;  In  re  Purchase  Manitowoc  El.  Lt. 
Plant,  1914,  13  R.  G.  452,  464;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  350,  364. 

8.  The  company's  contention  that  because  the  property  is  a  con- 
tinuous property  which  will  probably  never  be  entirely  scrapped  at  one 
time,  it  should  be  considered  that  there  has  been  no  element  of  depre- 
ciation which  should  be  deducted  from  the  cost  of  reproduction  is  not 
tenable.     In  re  Purchase  Janesville  W.Wks.  Plant,  1915, 15  R.  G.  674,  695. 

II.  DEPREGIATION  FUND. 

Depreciation  fund  as  distinguished  from  depreciation  reserve. 

9.  A  proper  depreciation  reserve  is  required  of  all  utilities.  A 
distinction,  however,  should  be  drawn  between  a  depreciation  reserve, 
which  is  required,  and  a  depreciation  reserve  fund,  which  is  optional. 
The  fund  is  created  by  actually  setting  aside  cash  or  other  assets  out  of 
which  future  payments  are  to  be  made.  A  reserve  is  merely  an  account 
which  designates  the  amount  and  character  of  certain  transactions 
within  the  business.  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant, 
1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  209. 

Expenditures  from  fund  irregular. 

10.  Depreciation  is  a  regular  charge,  but  the  expenditures  of  the 
depreciation  fund  are  irregular.  Thus  it  happens  that  there  may  be 
long  periods  in  the  life  of  a  plant  during  which  depreciation  is  accumulating 
but  when  no  renewals  of  any  considerable  proportions  are  made.  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sz  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  559. 

Use  of  fund. 

11.  Any  use  of  the  depreciation  fund  by  which  it  is  permanently 
diverted  from  the  use  for  which  it  is  intended,  is  a  violation  of  the  principle 
upon  which  such  funds  rest  and  contrary  to  the  requirements  for  which 
they  are  built  up.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  641; 
In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  790;  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  600;  City  of 


70 Depreciation, — Depreciation  fund 

Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  132,  138;  Superior 
Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  Street  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  1,  21. 

12.  It  is  not  usually  necessary  for  any  utility  to  keep  the  offsetting 
assets  to  care  for  depreciation  requirements  in  actual  cash  on  hand.  The 
assets  for  this  purpose  may  be  represented  in  plant,  in  current  assets  such 
as  cash,  or  in  a  combination  of  the  two.  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta, 
1913,  12  R.  G.  532,  540. 


III.  DEPRECIATION  RESERVE  CHARGE. 

Amount  of  annual  charge. 

13.  An  estimate  of  the  proper  amount  yearly  to  be  contributed  to 
the  depreciation  reserve  must  take  into  consideration  the  life  of  each 
separate  unit  of  equipment,  its  value,  the  interest  that  the  reserve  will 
earn  before  it  is  used  to  pay  for  replacements,  and  the  amount  that  will 
be  realized  for  scrap  value  when  it  is  discarded.  In  re  Men.  <Sc  Mar. 
Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  846;  Hillet  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  623,  643;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sz  El.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  599;  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
473,  485;  King  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  517,  521;  In  re  Invest. 
Ashland  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  45,  46;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public 
Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  129. 

Amount  of  flat  annual  charge  in  case  the  depreciation  fund  earns 
interest. 

14.  In  case  the  depreciation  fund  can  be  made  to  earn  a  fair  rate  of 
interest,  the  amount  of  the  flat  annual  charge  can  be  decreased  in  pro- 
portion to  the  amount  of  the  earnings  on  the  depreciation  funds.  In  re 
Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  98,  99,  101;  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland 
Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  279-281;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  611-612. 

Determination  of  a.^nual  charge  and  composite  life. 

15.  The  average  life  and  the  annual  amounts  required  to  make  up  the 
depreciable  plant  values,  are  estimated  on  two  bases — the  so-called 
compound  interest  curve  or  "sinking  fund"  basis  and  the  straight  line 
basis.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  EL  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
501,  604;  In  re  AppL  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Com/77.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260, 
285. 

Determination  of  annual  charge — Basis  of  charge. 

16.  The  property  value  upon  which  the  depreciation  allowance  must 
be  based,  or,  more  properly  speaking  the  amount  which  the  estimated 
yearly  reserve  should  in  the  end  equal  in  a  period  of  years  approximating 
the  average  life  of  the  plant,  is  the  cost  new  of  the  depreciable  property. 

'  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  aL  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  EL  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G. 
501,  601. 


Depreciation. — Depreciation  reserve  charge 71 

Difference  between  two  methods  with  respect  to  practical 

application. 

17.  Where  the  Ufe  of  a  utility  is  comparatively  short  and  where 
advances  in  the  art  are  numerous  as  in  the  case  of  an  electric  plant,  it 
would  seem  that  the  sinking  fund  method  of  determining  depreciation 
would  be  more  or  less  impracticable  and  difficult  of  application.  On  the 
other  hand  it  would  seem  that  the  sinking  fund  method  is  to  be  recom- 
mended in  the  case  of  water  utilities,  as  more  exactly  corresponding  to 
the  actual  experience  of  such  plants  and  as  more  economical  and  satis- 
factory in  the  long  run.  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G 
482,  503. 

18.  The  practicability  of  obtaining  interest  at  an  average  rate  of  as 
much  as  4  per  cent  on  funds  which  are  frequently  drawn  upon  and  added 
to  is  of  sufficient  doubt  to  lead  to  the  assumption  and  use  of  a  more 
conservative  rate.  The  amounts  set  aside  annually  for  depreciation  must 
increase  with  the  magnitude  of  the  depreciable  property,  although 
perhaps  not  in  exactly  direct  proportions.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  46. 

Under  the  sinking  fund  method. 

19.  Under  the  sinking  fund  method  for  determining  depreciation  it  is 
assumed  that  the  amount  set  aside  annually  should  be  invested  at  com- 
pound interest,  and  that  the  amount  so  set  aside,  plus  the  interest,  will 
be  sufficient  to  cover  the  replacement  at  the  end  of  the  life  of  the  property. 
Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  643;  State  Journal  Prtg. 
Co.  et  al.  V.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  604;  City  of  Ripon 
V.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  20;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  482,  502;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
228,  296;  Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  I.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  695,  709. 

20.  It  does  not  seem  fair  to  allow  a  continuously  operating  property 
an  expense  for  financing  depreciation  on  a  straight  line  basis.  A  large 
company  with  a  number  of  joint  utilities  and  subsidiary  properties  under 
its  control  and  with  numerous  opportunities  for  commercial  investment, 
can  readily  invest  any  offsetting  assets  of  the  depreciation  reserve  lia- 
bilities at  an  average  of  4  per  cent  return  or  better.  In  re  Service  of 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  in  Milw.,  1913,  1.3  R.  G.  178,  227-228. 

— Under  the  straight  line  me  I  hod. 


21.  Under  the  straight  line  method  of  determining  depreciation,  the 
life  of  the  unit  is  determined,  and  it  is  then  assumed  that  during  this 
life  the  depreciation  is  uniform.  It  is  also  assumed  that  there  will  be  no 
interest  accumulation.  Hill  et  al  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623, 
643;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G. 
501,  604;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  20; 
Fullmer  v.  Wausau  St.  R.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  114,  122;  In  re  Fond  du 
du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  482,  502. 

Differences  between  straight  line  method  and  sinking  fund  method 
of  determining  depreciation. 

22.  Under  the  straight  line  method  of  determining  depreciation,  the 
drop  in  value  is  the  same  each  year  during  the  entire  life  of  the  unit. 


72 Depreciation. — Depreciation  reserve  charge 

Under  the  sinking  fund  method  the  drop  is  Ught  at  first,  while  the  amount 
set  aside  is  small  but  the  drop  in  value  increases  as  this  amount  grows 
larger,  and  toward  the  end  of  the  life  period  it  rises  quite  rapidly.  For 
short  life  units  the  difTerence  between  the  two  methods  is  probably  not 
very  material.  For  long  life  units,  on  the  other  hand,  the  difference  may 
be  of  importance.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623, 
643-644. 

Necessity  for  reserve  charges. 

23.  To  ward  against  depreciation  not  covered  by  current  repairs 
a  depreciation  reserve  must  be  carried  on  the  books  of  the  company. 
Wis.  Statutes  sec.  1797m-15.  Another  reason  why  this  reserve  is  so 
indispensable  is  that  it  equalizes  depreciation  charges.  Knapp  et  al.  v. 
Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  180,  192;  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry.  &  Ltg. 
Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  148,  154;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  C.  712,  714;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  45. 

Purpose  of  reserve. 

24.  The  aim  of  the  establishment  of  a  depreciation  resers'^e,  in  short,  is 
to  keep  the  original  investment  intact.  In  re  Appl.  Cumberland  Mun. 
El.  Ltg.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  G.  214,  217;  City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater 
El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  132,  135;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  456;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant, 
1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  209. 

Total  renewals  should  amount  to  total  depreciation  in  long  run. 

25.  In  the  long  run  the  total  renewals  should  amount  to  as  much  as 
the  total  depreciation,  but  for  any  given  period  there  may  be  wide  differ- 
ences between  them.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  560. 

IV.  RATES  OF  DEPREGiATION. 

In  general. 

26.  It  is  probable  that  the  fairest  representation  of  the  course  of 
depreciation  is  the  sinking  fund  curve.  Whether  a  4  per  cent,  3  per  cent 
or  other  curve  is  the  closest  to  a  fair  and  reasonable  rate  depends  largely 
upon  other  factors,  which  can  perhaps  be  closely  ascertained  only  by 
careful  investigations  and  clear  knowledge  of  the  surrounding  conditions. 
City  ofBeloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  iSc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  236. 

27.  As  the  rate  of  depreciation  depends  on  the  useful  life  of  the  prop- 
erty, it  can  readily  be  determined  when  this  life  and  cost  of  the  property  is 
known.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4 
R.  G.  501,  559. 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  electric  plant. 

28.  Depreciation  computed  at  2.5  per  cent.  In  re  Appl.  Rhinelander 
Power  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  783,  806. 

29.  Depreciation  computed  at  a  trifle  less  than  3  per  cent.  In  re 
Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  EL  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  727. 


Depreciation. — Rates  of 73 

30.  Depreciation  computed  at  3.5  per  cent.  In  re  Appl.  Mun.  El. 
Utility  of  Sun  Prairie,  1914,  15  R.  G.  189,  193. 

31.  Depreciation  computed  at  4  per  cent.  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee 
EL  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  712,  716. 

32.  Depreciation  computed  at  4.5  per  cent.  Superior  Comml.  Club 
et  at.  V.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  752;  Kittleson  et  at.  v. 
Elroij  Mun.  W.  cfc  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485,  491;  City  of  Watertown  v. 
Watertown  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  604,  ai6. 

33.  Depreciation  computed  at  5  per  cent.  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry. 
Sz  Ltg.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  148,  158;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Vat.  Ry.  Lt.  & 
P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  311,  321;  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  G.  392,  406-407;  In  re  Appl.  North  Miliv.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909, 

4  R.  G.  89,  96;  In  re  Appl  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910, 

5  R.  G.  555,  560;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
406,  426;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comin.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449, 
456,  475;  In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G.  584,  594-595; 
In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534,  540. 

Street  lighting  system'. 


34.  Depreciation  computed  at  4.5  per  cent.  City  of  Sheboygan  v. 
Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  353,  365;  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca 
El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  G.  586,  601. 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  gas  plant. 

35.  Depreciation  computed  at  2  per  cent.  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine 
Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  296;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  G.  Lt.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  G.  439,  459;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sz 
P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  752;  City  of  Milw.  v.  Miliv.  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  G.  441.  476;  Yanko  et  al.  v.  Portage  American  Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
136,  141. 

36.  The  average  life  of  a  gas  plant  appears  to  be  about  thirty  years. 
Some  parts  of  the  plant  last  much  longer  than  this,  but  there  are  other 
parts,  again,  which  have  a  shorter  life.  With  a  life  of  thirty  years  it  is 
evident  that  in  order  to  accumulate  a  sum  sufficient  to  replace  the  plant 
at  the  end  of  its  life,  about  3^  per  cent  of  its  cost  would  have  to  be  set 
aside  annually.  If  invested  at  compound  interest  until  required,  the 
amount  to  be  set  aside  could  be  reduced  to  a  somewhat  lower  figure. 
Depreciation  computed  at  3.5  per  cent.  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co., 
1908,  3  R.  G.  163.  170. 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  paving  constructed  by  street  railway  com- 
pany. 

37.  The  rate  of  depreciation  allowed  upon  the  paving  constructed 
by  the  company  was  computed  upon  the  basis  of  the  average  life  of 
granite  paving,  brick,  asphalt  and  creosote  block  paving  and  the  final 
average  life  of  paving  under  Milwaukee  conditions  was  placed  at  twelve 
and  one-half  years  where  track  renewals  were  the  determining  feature, 
and  the  final  average  life  of  granite  block  was  placed  at  twenty-one  years. 
In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Jc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  G.  178,  234. 


74 Depreciation. — Rates  of 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  street  railway  plant. 

38.  Depreciation  computed  at  4.32  per  cent.  In  re  Service  of  T.  M. 
E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.^  C.  178,  228. 

39.  Depreciation  computed  at  4.5  per  cent.  Superior  Comml.  Club 
et  aL  V.  Duluth  Street  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  1,  19. 

40.  The  rate  of  depreciation  as  estimated  by  the  Commission  ap- 
proximates 5.35  per  cent  of  the  depreciable  property  for  the  entire  plant. 
Depreciation  computed  at  5.35  per  cent.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M. 
E,  R.  6c  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  227. 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  telephone  plant. 

41.  Depreciation  computed  at  6.5  per  cent.  In  re  Appl.  Wautoma 
iSc  ML  Morris  Farmers'  Tel  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  419,  422;  In  re  Appl. 
Brooklyn  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  573,  576;  In  re  Appl.  Brodhead  Tel.  Co., 

1912,  9  R.  C.  383,  385;  In  re  Appl.  Ashland  Home  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C. 

489,  496;  In  re  Appl.  East  Fond  du  Lac  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  114,  116; 
In  re  Appl.  Random  Lake  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  130,  131;  Knapp  et  al. 
V.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  180,  188;  In  re  Appl.  People's  Tel.  Co., 

1913,  11  R.  C.  499,  505;  City  of  Merrill  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C. 

490,  493;  In  re  Proposed  Exten.  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  744,  747. 

42.  Depreciation  computed  at  7  per  cent.  In  re  Oregon  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  534,  547;  Columbus  Adv.  Assn.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  4 
R.  G.  414,  420;  In  re  Appl.  Ozaukee-Washington  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
428,  433;  In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee- Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  465,  470; 
In  re  Appl.  Rockland  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  402,  409;  In  re  Appl.  Clark 
County  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  822,  827. 

43.  Depreciation  computed  at  approximately  9  per  cent.  Payne 
et  al.  V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  1,  10,  12;  In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Point 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  182,  184. 

44.  Depreciation  computed  at  approximately  10  per  cent.  In  re 
Appl.  Int'erurban  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  187,  190. 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  toll  bridge. 

45.  Depreciation  computed  at  about  3  per  cent.  Marcus  et  al.  v. 
Postel  &  Swingle,  1913,  13  R.  G.  47,  50. 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  water  plant. 

46.  Depreciation  computed  at  0.45  per  cent.  In  re  Purchase  Oshkosh 
W.  Wks.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  602,  668. 

47.  Depreciation  computed  at  0.63  per  cent.  In  re  Purchase  Antigo 
W.  Co.'s  Plant,  1913,  13  R.  G.  156,  162-163. 

48.  Depreciation  computed  at  0.7  per  cent.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland 
Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  46. 

49.  Depreciation  computed  at  0.8  per  cent.  Superior  Comml.  Club 
et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  752. 

50.  Depreciation  computed  at  1  per  cent.  In  re  Appl.  Madison  City 
W.  Wks.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  299,  303;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  482,  502;  In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  71,  99; 
In  re  Oconto  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497,  534;  City  of  Janesville  v. 
Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G  628.  650;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City  W.  Co. 


Disadvantage  75 


of  Marinette,  1911,  8  R.  C.  334,  364;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  C.  236,  254;  In  re  AppL  Columbus  W.  <k  Lt.  Com.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  449,  475;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C. 
260,  288;  In  re  AppL  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  C.  532,  542;  Town  of 
Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  291,  299;  Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy 
Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  485,  491;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun. 
W.  Sc  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534,  540. 

51.  Depreciation  computed  at  1.5  per  cent.  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson 
Mun.  EL  LL  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  560;  City  of  Stevens  Pt.  v. 
Stevens  Pt.  Water  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  458,  470;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G. 
&  EL  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  350;  Rollins  et  aL  v.  Village  of  Montfort, 
1913,  11  R.  C.  278,  283;  In  re  AppL  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  C.  148, 
153. 

DERAILING  SYSTEM. 

Installation  of  derailing  system  for  the  protection  of  railroad  by  railroad 
crossing,  see  Railroads,  58. 

DESK  TELEPHONES. 

Charge  for  changing  from  wall  to  desk  telephone,   or  vice  versa,  see 
Rates — Telephone,  13. 

DESTINATION  SIGNS. 

Destination  signs  to  be  displayed  on  street  cars  to  improve  service,  see 
Street  Railways,  45. 

DETENTION  OF  CARS. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  187. 

DEVELOPMENT   AND    RETENTION    OF   BUSINESS. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  43^4. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  49-52. 

DEVELOPMENT  COSTS. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  42-55. 

DIRECTORIES. 

See  Telephone  Utilities,  1. 

DISADVANTAGE. 

See  Discrimination. 


76  Discounts 


DISCOUNTS. 

Discounts  on  bonds  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see 
Valuation,  82-84. 

Discrimination  due  to  discount  provisions  in  utility  rate  schedule,  see  Dis- 
crimination, 14.  29,  34. 

Regulations  as  to  payment  of  rates  for  services  rendered  by  public  utility, 
provision  for  discounts,  see  Rules  ANp  Regulations,  14-19. 

DISCRIMINATION. 


I.   IN   GENERAL. 
II.   AS  BETWEEN   COMMODITIES. 

III.  AS   BETWEEN   CONSUMERS. 

a.  Electric  rates.  c.   Water  mains. 

b.  Gas  rates.  d.   Water  rates. 

IV.  AS   BETWEEN   CONSUMERS   AND   TAXPAYERS. 

a.   Municipal  utility  rates. 
V.   AS  BETWEEN   CUSTOMERS. 
VI.   AS  BETWEEN   DEALERS. 

a.   Grain  elevators. 
VII.   AS  BETWEEN   LOCALITIES. 
VIII.  AS  BETWEEN   PASSENGERS. 
IX.   AS  BETWEEN   PRIVATE   CARS. 
X.   AS  BETWEEN   SHIPPERS. 
XL   AS   BETWEEN   STATIONS, 
a.   Car  service. 

XII.  AS  BETWEEN   SUBSCRIBERS. 

a.  Telephone  rates.  b.  Telephone  service. 

XIII.  AS  BETWEEN  TRANSFER  COMPANIES. 


I.     IN  GENERAL. 

Difficulty  in  proving  discrimination. 

1.  Shippers  who  may  desire  to  ascertain  the  situation  they  are  in 
with  respect  to  rates,  often  find  it  very  difTicult  to  obtain  much  if  any  light 
from  the  tariffs  alone.  Many  instances  are  therefore  met  with  where 
shippers  are  unable  to  show  disadvantages  against  them  in  freight  rates, 
although  such  disadvantages  may  actually  exist.  Wisconsin  Box  Co. 
et  al.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  605,  612. 

Discrimination  not  necessarily  unlawful. 

2.  It  is  not  every  prejudice  or  disadvantage  to  which  a  person  may 
be  subjected  by  a  railway  company,  either  in  the  facilities  furnished  or 
charges  exacted  for  transportation  services,  that  is  prohibited  by  the 
statute,  but  only  those  that  are  "undue  or  unreasonable."  Lieberman  v. 
C.  M.  iSc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  330,  331. 

The  fact  that  discrimination  is  unintentional  is  immaterial. 

3.  The  fact  that  inequalities  in  rates  may  be  unintentional  and  that 
they  may  have  crept  into  the  schedules  by  mere  chance,  does  not  in  any 
sense  justify  their  continuance.  In  re  Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream,  1908, 
2  R.  G.  450,  458-459. 


Discrimination.- — As  between  consumers 77 

What  constitutes  discrimination. 

4.  The  fact  that  the  differences  between  the  rates  under  two  methods 
of  shipment  are  greater  than  they  should  be  may  alone  constitute  dis- 
crimination.    Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  1,  21. 

5.  A  schedule  of  rates  so  arranged  as  to  quantity  steps  and  discount 
provisions  as  to  make  possible  a  larger  bill  to  one  consumer  than  the  bill 
against  another  whose  consumption  may  be  even  greater,  is  inequitable 
and  discriminatory.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  Water  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
1,28. 

II.     AS  BETWEEN  COMMODITIES. 

Discrimination  as  between  commodities. 

6.  The  price  of  butter  is  more  than  double  the  price  of  whey  butter, 
and  it  appears  to  us  that  like  treatment  in  the  classification  and  the  rate 
of  whey  butter  and  of  creamery  butter  is  a  discrimination  against  whey 
butter.  So.  Wis.  CheesemerCs  Protective  Ass^n.  v.  Ry.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  C. 
143,  165. 

III.     AS  BETWEEN  CONSUMERS. 

a.    ELECTRIC    RATES. 

Discrimination  as  between  consumers  using  electricity  exclusively 
and  those  using  other  methods  of  lighting  or  power. 

7.  Discriminations  arise  from  the  preference  given  by  the  company 
to  consumers  using  electricity  exclusively,  as  against  consumers  using 
other  methods  of  lighting  or  power.  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt. 
&  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  692,  694-695. 

Discrimination  between  different  classes  of  consumers. 

8.  There  are,  no  doubt,  instances  where  customers  cannot  be  had  at 
the  regular  rates,  and  where  it  might  be  good  business  for  the  plant  and 
to  the  best  interest  of  the  rest  of  the  consumers  to  make  some  concession 
in  the  rates,  at  least  for  a  limited  period.  To  put  a  rate  schedule  into  effect 
for  permanent  use,  which  is  so  low  as  to  hardly  cover  the  output  costs,  or 
that  yields  so  little  in  the  way  of  revenues  as  to  leave  little  or  nothing  for 
interest,  depreciation  and  taxes,  would  seem  to  be  o\xX  of  line  with  sound 
business  practice,  and  discriminatory  as  against  other  customers.  In  re 
Men.  cfc  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  898;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon 
Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5.  R.  C.  1,  45. 

9.  As  short  hour  customers  make  a  much  smaller  use  of  the  plant 
and  equipment  that  has  been  provided  and  is  maintained  for  them  than 
long  hour  customers,  it  also  of  necessity  follows  that  the  former  are  rela- 
tively more  costly  to  the  plant.  Such  differences  in  the  cost  should  be 
made  up  by  corresponding  differences  in  the  rates.  Harrington  et  at.  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  64, '68. 


78 Discrimination. — As  between  consumers 

a.   ELECTRIC   RATES. — Continued. 

Discrimination. — Due  to  assessing  the  demand  on  the  monthly  basis 
instead  of  the  maximum  demand  for  the  year. 

10.  Where  the  intent  of  the  schedule  is  to  base  the  demand  on  the 
maximum  demand  for  the  year,  the  practice  of  assessing  it  on  the  monthly 
basis  results  in  discrimination.  In  re  Invest.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al., 
1912.  9  R.  C.  541,  562-563,  570. 

Charging  dissimilar  rates  for  similar  service. 

11.  Under  the  existing  rates,  the  charge  for  residence  lighting  is 
16  cts.  per  kw-hr.,  for  some  business  places  10  cts.  per  kw-hr.  and  for 
other  business  places  10  cts.  per  kw-hr.  with  the  discounts  dependent 
upon  the  quantity  of  current  consumed.  This  practice,  which  is  unjustly 
discriminatory,  will  be  remedied  by  the  new  rates.  Jones  et  at.  v.  Berlin 
Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121,  135. 

Cumulative  billing. 

12.  The  practice  of  billing  separate  premises  belonging  to  a  single 
owner  under  a  single  bill  usually  results  in  unjust  discriminations.     When 

(  contrary  to  the  provisions  in  the  rate  schedules  and  rules  it  is  also  unlaw- 
ful.   In  re  Invest.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541,  563,  575. 

Different  rates  on  account  of  ownership  of  instrument  or 

facility  by  consumer. 

13.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  utility  to  furnish  meters,  and  no  distinction, 
as  far  as  rates  or  minimum  charges  are  concerned,  can  be  made  between 
consumers  who  own  their  meters  and  those  whose  meters  are  owned  by 
the  utihty.  In  re  Appl.  Bruce  Water  <Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  474,  476; 
In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  303;  In  re 
Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  52,  54. 

Discount  provisions. 

14.  A  schedule  of  rates  so  arranged  as  to  quantity  steps  and  discount 
provisions  as  to  make  possible  a  larger  bill  to  one  consumer  of  electric  cur- 
rent than  the  bill  against  another  whose  consumption  may  be  even  greater, 
is  inequitable  and  discriminatory.  Citu  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  28;  Ross  et  at.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  &  El.  P.  Co.,  1910, 

.   5  R.  C.  139,  162;  Citij  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
360,  383. 

Failure  to  base  rates  on  cost. 

15.  Generally  speaking,  the  rates  should,  as  far  as  practicable,  be 


based  upon  cost.  Short  hour  users  are  more  costly  to  the  plant  than  long 
hour  users,  and  consequently  should  pay  higher  rates.  Unless  the  rates 
charged  in  each  case  bear  a  rather  close  relation  to  the  cost,  there  is  apt 
to  be  discrimination  as  between  customers.  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville  El.  Lt. 
Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  392,  412. 

Flat  rates. 

16.  That  flat  rates  ordinarily  lead  to  unjust  distribution  of  the  oper- 
ating burden  has  been  found  repeatedly.   It  is  hardly  necessary  to  demon- 


Discrimination. — As  between  consumers 79 

strate  the  need  of  abandoning  such  rates  when  the  utility  is  ready  to 
eliminate  them.  In  re  Appl.  Evansville  Mun.  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912, 
11  R.  C.  197,  206;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Withee,  1914,  13  R.  G.  704,  709. 

Flat  and  meter  rates. 

17.  A  rate  of  10  cts.  per  kw-hr.  to  some  consumers,  and  another  rate 
of  50  cts.  per  month  for  each  16  c.  p.  lamp  for  the  lamps  actually  burned 
and  when  no  consideration  is  given  either  to  the  number  of  lamps  installed 
or  to  the  length  of  time  the  lamps  were  used,  to  other  consumers,  is  cer- 
tainly likely  to  be  discriminatory.  In  re  Appl.  Fox  River  Millg.  Sc  P.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  135,  138. 

Furnishing  fixtures,  etc.,  at  or  below  cost  in  order  to  secure 

consumers. 

18.  The  costs  for  fixtures  depend  on  different  causes  and  units  than 
the  other  costs  of  service.  They  cannot  often  be  equitably  distributed 
among  the  consumers  unless  they  are  paid  for  directly.  Therefore,  the 
practice  of  furnishing  fixtures  and  other  items  at  or  below  cost  in  order  to 
secure  customers  results  in  unjust  discrimination.  7^  re  Invest.  T.  M.  E. 
R.  iSc  L.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  9  R.  G.  541,  563-564. 

Granting  of  refund  from  rates  on  file  with  the  Commission. 

19.  Any  agreement  to  make  a  refund  of  any  part  of  the  rates  or 
charges  in  the  schedules  on  file  with  the  Commission  is  a  violation  of 
sees.  1797/n--33  and  1797/n-92,  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law.  Douglass  et 
al.  V.  Equitable  EL  Lt.  Co^  1913,  12  R.  G.  337,  354. 

Meter  rental  paid  to  utility  by  consumer. 

20.  The  proposed  schedule  seeks  to  assess  a  minimum  bill  to  lighting 


consumers  of  50  cts.  per  month,  of  which  25  cts.  is  the  meter  rental.  In 
effect  this  is  a  discrimination  between  consumers  who  own  their  meters 
and  those  who  are  supplied  with  meters  by  the  utility.  In  re  Appl. 
Bloomer  EL  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  6  R.  G.  506,  514. 

Preferential  rate  to  employes  of  utility. 

21.  Although  the  Commission  has  no  present  knowledge  of  the  prac- 
tice now  followed  by  the  company  in  charging  its  employes  for  electric 
service,  there  is  found  in  the  schedule  on  file  with  the  Commission  the 
following  preferential  rate:  Employes  of  company,  50  per  cent  of  regular 
meter  rate.  The  granting  of  such  rates  is  in  violation  of  the  Public  Utili- 
ties Law  and  the  practice  should  be  discontinued  at  once  if  it  is  being  in- 
dulged in  by  the  company.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  121,  135. 

Rate  wars. 

22.  That  the  law  covers  such  injuries  to  business  and  public  interests 
as  those  caused  by  rate  wars,  seems  clear,  not  only  from  its  provisions, 
but  from  the  circumstances  under  which  these  provisions  were  enacted. 
Kenosha  EL  Rij.  Co.  v.  Kenosha  G.  Sc  EL  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  119,  120-121. 


80 Discrimination. — As  between  consumers 

a.    ELECTRIC   RATES— Continued. 

Discrimination  due  to  assessing  the  demand  on  the  monthly 
basis  instead  of  the  maximum  demand  for  the  year — 
Substitution  of  power  rates  for  lighting  rates  properly  appli- 
cable under  the  schedule. 

23.  The  practice  of  substituting  power  rates  for  lighting  rates  prop- 
erly applicable  under  the  schedule  results  in  unjust  discrimination.  In  re 
Invest.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  541,  547-550. 

r 

Unlimited  use  under  maximum  charge. 


24.  The  commercial  power  schedule  shows  a  possibility  of  unlimited 
use  by  power  users  at  a  certain  maximum  price  per  horse  power,  which 
tends  toward  an  unjust  discrimination  against  small  users.  In  re  Service 
and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350,  357. 

Discrimination  possible  under  straight  meter  rates. 

25.  Where  there  are  considerable  variations  as  between  the  custom- 
ers in  the  demand  and  the  length  of  time  the  current  is  used,  a  uniform 
rate  is  likely  to  be  discriminatory.  Where,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are 
comparatively  small  variations  as  between  customers  on  the  demand  and 
in  the  hours  of  daily  use  of  the  current,  a  uniform  rate  may  not  be  unfair. 
In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  6c  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  397,  415;  In  re 
Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  EL  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  736;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro 
Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52,  54;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt. 
Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350,  369. 

Necessity  of  reading  meters  regularly  in  order  to  avoid  discrimi- 
nation. 

26.  There  will,  of  course,  be  instances  where  it  is  impracticable  to 
read  a  meter  but  it  is  important  that  readings  be  taken  and  bills  delivered 
each  month,  wherever  practicable,  in  order  to  avoid  discrimination  and  to 
afford  a  means  of  detecting  any  defective  meter  or  unusal  condition  of 
consumption.  In  re  Appl.  Gilmanton  Mill  Sc  El.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
152,  153. 

Requirement  that  outside  consumers  of  a  municipal  utility  fur- 
nish part  of  facilities.  ' 

27.  In  the  absence  of  an  order  of  the  Gommission  to  the  contrary 
the  city  may  require  remote  consumers  or  consumers  without  the  city,  as  a 
condition  to  receiving  service  where  the  cost  of  service  may  be  relatively 
great,  to  furnish  part  of  the  service  equipment.  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson 
W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  270. 

b.    GAS   RATES. 

Discrimination  due  to  absence  of  minimum  charge. 

28.  Where  no  minimum  charge  is  made,  the  company  is  compelled 
to  carry  considerable  dead  investment  and  to  incur  other  expenses  for 
those  consumers  who  pay  nothing  or  very  little  to  the  company.  In  re 
Appl.  Green  Bay  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  101,  105. 


Discrimination. — As  between  consumers 81 

Discount  provisions. 

29.  A  schedule  of  rates  so  arranged  as  to  quantity  steps  and  discount 
provisions  as  to  make  possible  a  larger  bill  to  one  consumer  of  gas  than 
the  bill  against  another  whose  consumption  may  be  even  greater,  is  in- 
equitable and  discriminatory.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  1,  56. 

c.  WATER   MAINS. 

Extension  of  — Dissimilarity  in  treatment  of  individuals. 

30.  In  the  matter  of  extending  the  mains  of  a  water  system,  uniform 
regulations  should  be  enforced.  The  persons  desiring  extensions  should 
be  subjected  to  like  terms  and  conditions.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.  v.  City 
of  Beloit,  1912,  9  R.  C.  250,  260. 

d.  WATER    RATES. 

Discrimination  between  different  classes  of  consumers. 

31.  Where  the  number  of  hydrants  and  character  of  fire  protection 
demanded  by  the  municipality  is  such  that  it  occasions  65.22  per  cent  of 
the  water  utility  investment  and  47  per  cent  of  the  operating  expenses, 
but  pays  rates  which  yield  only  38  per  cent  of  the  water  utility  revenue, 
the  schedule  is  discriminatory  as  against  private  consumers  and  an  in- 
crease in  hydrant  rental  and  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  commercial 
rates  must  be  made.  Citij  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
1,  68,  77. 

Discrimination  due  to  charging  lower  rate    for    similar    or    larger 
installations. 

32.  Gonsumers  not  infrequently  increase  their  fixtures  or  build  addi- 
tions to  their  houses  without  notifying  the  water  company,  so  that  dis- 
criminations in  rates  inevitably  occur  without  the  knowledge  of  the  water 
company.    City  of  Stevens  Pt.  v.  Stevens  Pt.  W.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  458,  467. 

Charging  similar  rates  for  dissimilar  service. 

33.  A  flat  rate  which,  with  certain  exceptions,  is  the  same  to  all  con- 
sumers irrespective  of  the  amount  of  water  consumed,  the  purposes  for 
which  it  is  used,  or  the  fixtures  in  use  is  unjustly  discriminatory.  Kirivin 
et  at.  V.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G.  26. 


Discount  provisions. 

34.  A  schedule  of  rates  so  arranged  as  to  quantity  steps  and  discount 
provisions  as  to  make  possible  a  larger  bill  to  one  consumer  of  water  than 
the  bill  against  another  whose  consumption  may  be  even  greater,  is  in- 
equitable and  discriminatory.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  84. 

Failure  to  enforce  rate  schedule  impartially. 


35.  Failure  to  enforce  a  rate  schedule  impartially  results  in  unjust 
discriminations.  Fitzgerald  et  at.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  G.  40. 
50,  56-57;  Kirwin  et  at.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G.  26. 


82 Discrimination. — As  between  consumers 

d.    WATER   RATES. — Continued. 

Discrimination  due  to  charging  lower  rate  for  similar  or  larger 
installations — Free  or  reduced  rate  service.  / 

36.  The  practice  of  furnishing  free  or  reduced  rate  service  is  pro- 
hibited by  law.  It  is  as  indefensible  in  ethics  as  it  is  unlawful.  Dick 
et  al.  V.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  731,  790,  791;  Kirwin  et  al  v. 
City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G.  26,  28-29.  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of 
Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  G.  40;  In  re  AppL  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
148,  162. 

Increased  rates  for  consumers  on  new  extensions. 

37.  When  the  consumers  on  a  new  extension  are  so  numerous  as  to 
make  it  reasonably  compensatory,  any  extra  charges  or  any  charge  above 
the  regular  schedule  rates  applying  to  all  consumers  in  the  same  class  would 
appear  to  be  unjust  and  discriminatory.  Beloit  Water  G.  Sc  El.  Co.  v. 
City  of  Beloit,  1910,  5  R.  G.  617,  623. 

Meter  rental  paid  to  utility  by  consumer. 

38.  The  granting  of  lower  rates  to  consumers  who  own  their  meter 
than  to  those  who  do  not,  discriminates  between  consumers  and  is  unlawful. 
(Wis.  Statutes  sec.  1797/n-90.)  West  et  al.  v.  City  of  Eau  Claire,  1912,  9 
R.  G.  134,  137,  153;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Neenah,  1912,  11  R.  G.  119,  128; 
In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sz  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  313;  In  re 
Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  68. 

Minimum  charge  fixed  without  regard  to  size  of  meter. 


39.  A  minimum  bill  which  is  the  same,  regardless  of  the  size  of 
meter,  would  ignore  the  fact  that  the  investment  is  large  or  small  accord- 
ing to  the  size  of  the  meter,  or  if  made  an  average  amount  would  dis- 
criminate against  the  consumers  who  use  the  small  sizes.  City  of  Ripon  v. 
Ripon  Lt.  <k  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  84;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W. 
&  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  205;  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  W.  Wks., 
J914,  14  R.  G.  669,  680. 

Paying  excessive  meter  rental  to  consumers. 


40.  In  case  of  lease  of  meters  by  a  water  utility,  the  rental  paid  to  the 
consumer  must  be  a  reasonable  rental,  and  subterfuges  in  the  form  of 
excessive  rentals  are  unjust  discriminations,  punishable  by  law.  In  re 
Invest.  Hudson  W.  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  138,  141-142. 

Preferential  rates. 

41.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  law  no  utihty  should  make  or  give 
any  undue  preference  or  advantage  to  any  particular  consumer  or  subject 
any  consumer  to  any  disadvantage  in  any  respect,  by  means  of  a  less  rate 
than  that  named  in  the  pubhshed  schedule  (sec.  1797/n-33).  Hughes  et  al. 
V.  Watertown  W.  Wks.  1914,  14  R.  G.  669,  681. 

Discrimination  in  favor  of  consumers  as  against  taxpayers. 

42.  Where  all  the  expenses  of  operation  and  fixed  charges  are  not 
borne  by  the  revenues  of  the  plant  but  are  helped  out  by  taxation,  as  is 
frequently  the  case  with  municipally  owned  plants,  it  is  not  equitable  to 


Discrimination. — As  between  customers 83 

the  property  owners  that  one  should  be  required  to  help  maintain  the 
plant  so  that  another  enjoys  the  use  of  the  commodities.  Superior 
Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Li.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  780. 

Discrimination  possible  under  flat  rates. 

43.  It  is  a  well  understood  fact  that  flat  rates  universally  result  in 
excessive  and  wasteful  consumption,  and  in  unjust  discriminations  in 
diverse  forms,  and  in  irritation  and  ill-feeling  among  the  consumers  as  to 
a  schedule  of  rates,  which  at  best  is  uncertain  and  guess  work.  City  of 
Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  74,  92. 

Reduced  rates  for  large  consumers. 

44.  It  may  sometimes  be  the  case  that  certain  large  consumers  may 
be  given  a  lower  rate,  due  to  the  fact  that  less  cost  is  incurred  in  supplying 
such  consumers.  It  may  be  stated,  however,  that  such  reductions  in 
rates  should  be  given  only  upon  careful  consideration  and  with  the  clear 
knowledge  that  such  reductions  will  not  compel  other  and  smaller  consum- 
ers to  bear  more  than  their  proper  share  of  the  expenses,  otherwise  dis- 
crimination must  follow  such  reductions.  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun. 
El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  585. 

IV.  AS  BETWEEN  GONSUMERS  AND  TAXPAYERS. 

a.    MUNICIPAL  UTILITY   RATES. 

Elimination  of  fixed  charges  as  element  in  making  rates  for  mu- 
nicipal utilities. 

45.  If  such  items  as  interest,  depreciation  and  taxes  are  not  considered 
by  municipal  plants  in  fixing  rates  for  private  consumers,  it  would  seem 
that  these  consumers  would  be  favored  as  against  the  taxpayers.  In  re 
Appl.  Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  G.  216,  218-219;  In  re  Appl.  Ft. 
Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  285;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore 
Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  209. 

Inclusion  of  sinking  fund  charge  for  retiring  bonds  as  an  element 
in  making  rates  for  municipal  utilities. 

46.  The  practice  of  charging  annually  to  operating  expenses  the 
amount  used  for  the  retiring  of  bonds  would  appear  to  result  in  a  dis- 
crimination against  present  consumers  if  they  are  at  the  same  time  re- 
quired to  pay  interest  on  the  full  value  of  the  property.  The  retirement 
of  bonds  results  in  the  municipality  acquiring  a  valuable  property  unen- 
cumbered by  indebtedness,  and  it  seems  just  that  the  taxpayers  should 
pay  the  cost  thus  incurred.  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  286. 

V.  AS  BETWEEN  GUSTOMERS. 

Express  delivery  limits. 

47.  In  fixing  express  delivery  limits,  care  must  be  taken  that  no  undue 
or  unjust  discrimination  between  customers  shall  result  as  a  consequence 
thereof.     In  our  judgment  arbitrary  limits  within  municipalities  cannot 


84 Discrimination. — As  between  customers 

be  established  for  such  purpose  without  subjecting  those  residing  within, 
the  boundaries  of  the  municipality  but  outside  of  such  limits  to  an  unjust 
disadvantage  or  prejudice.    Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  a/.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  556,  569;  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Express  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  594,  596. 

VI.  AS  BETWEEN  DEALERS. 

a.    GRAIN   ELEVATORS. 

Leasing  of  elevator  to  favored  shipper  or  dealer. 

48.  The  leasing  of  the  elevator  property  controlled  by  the  railroad 
company,  taken  in  connection  with  the  subsequent  use  to  which  the  prop- 
erties were  put  after  the  lease  was  made,  was  an  unjust  and  unlawful 
discrimination  against  the  grain  dealers  in  Superior  who  had  formerly 
been  supplied  with  elevator  privileges  at  that  place  and  who  have  been 
obliged  to  discontinue  business  because  such  facilities  were  withdrawn. 
Superior  Bd.  of  Trade  v.  G.N.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1907,  1  R.  G.  619,  654. 

VIL  AS  BETWEEN  LOGALITIES. 

Commutation  rates. 

49.  While  the  establishment  of  commutation  rates  is  .a  matter  of 
managerial  policy  of  the  company,  and  the  company  may  accord  such 
privilege  to  such  localities  as  it  may  deem  best,  and  in  granting  it  to  one 
locality  and  denying  it  to  another  the  company  may  be  acting  within  its 
lawful  right,  so  long  as  no  discrimination  is  practiced  between  individuals. 
Yet  it  does  not  follow  that  in  all  cases  discriminations  between  communities 
in  the  matter  of  commutation  rates  can  be  justified  under  the  statute. 
Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  330,  334-335. 

Excursion  train  service. 

50.  The  failure  of  the  respondent  to  stop  its  Sunday  excursion  train 
at  Winnibijou,  while  making  stops  at  other  stations  of  equal  or  less  import- 
ance, is  unjustly  discriminatory.  Hughson  v.  D.  S.  S.  <Sz  A.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  406,  408. 

Requirement  as  to  equality. 

51.  The  principle  of  equality  would  seem  to  demand  that  local  dis- 
criminations should  be  justified  by  and  correspond  to  different  local  con- 
ditions, but  should  not  be  based  upon  distinctions  discountenanced  by  the 
constitution  or  by  the  policy  of  the  law.  Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  330,  331-332. 

Stopping  of  trains. 

52.  The  fact  that  certain  trains  stop  at  stations  of  equal  or  less  im- 
portance than  a  station  at  which  they  do  not  stop,  may  be  regarded  as  a 
discrimination  but  if  the  latter  already  has  reasonably  adequate  service 
and  the  stopping  of  trains  at  the  former  is  done  solely  because  of  the 
company's  reluctance  to  discontinue  service  to  which  its  patrons  have 
become  accustomed  from  long  usage,  the  practice  will  not  be  regarded  as 


Discrimination. — As  between  passengers    85 

unjustly  discriminatory.    Anderfon  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  cfc  -S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  247,  248-250. 

VIII.  AS  BETWEEN  PASSENGERS. 

Commutation  rates. 

53.  If  a  company  voluntarily  establishes  a  commutation  rate  between 
any  points  on  its  road,  it  must  be  accorded  under  the  same  circumstances 
and  upon  the  same  conditions  to  all  alike  who  may  desire  to  avail  them- 
selves of  it.    Lieberman  if.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  330,  334. 

Commutation  tickets. 

54.  To  afford  convenient  facilities  for  acquiring  tickets  at  reduced 
rates  to  persons  who  reside  near  certain  stations  or  stopping  points,  and 
to  deny  such  facilities  to  others  who  reside  in  the  vicinity  of  other  stopping 
points,  results  in  subjecting  the  latter  persons  to  an  undue  disadvantage. 
City  of  Depere  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  604,  614. 

Interurban  rates — Reduced  rates  for  competitive  points. 

55.  It  is  a  general  practice  with  steam  and  interurban  electric  roads 
to  use  the  shorter  mileage  so  as  to  meet  the  competition  of  the  road  having 
the  shorter  route,  and  there  is  no  objection  to  this  being  done  in  the  in- 
stant case,  as  the  respondent  is  thus  enabled  to  obtain  a  fair  share  of  the 
available  traffic  whereby  to  increase  its  earnings  and  to  give  all  of  its 
patrons  a  lower  fare  than  could  be  charged  if  its  traffic  were  limited  to 
strictly  local  business.  Chromaster  v.  M.  N.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  734, 
746-747. 

Interurban  zone  system  rates. 

56.  It  is  not  practical  in  street  car  operation  to  make  rates  on  a  mile- 
age basis,  and  the  ordinances  under  which  the  street  car  lines  in  the  city 
of  Milwaukee  are  being  operated,  recognize  this  fact  and  establish  the 
zone  system.  Gillett  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  689,  706- 
707. 

57.  The  zone  system  is  the  only  practical  system  of  rates  on  re- 
spondent's interurban  line.  In  respondent's  present  zone  system  there  is  a 
marked  uniformity  of  the  length  of  zones,  whereby  the  inequalities  of 
the  zone  system  are  reduced  to  a  minimum.  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  cfc 
Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  495-496. 

58.  The  varying  zone  lengths  are  discriminatory  not  only  to  the  peti- 
tioner but  to  other  patrons  of  the  road  and  they  should  be  revised  and 
placed  on  a  basis  equitable  to  all.  Vosburg  v.  Wis.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  8 
R.  G.  709,  717.  , 

59.  The  so-called  five-cent  zone  system  of  suburban  and  interurban 
rates,  in  use  on  many  interurban  electric  railways,  is  unscientific  and  in- 
equitable because  of  the  unequal  zone  distances  used,  the  concessions  made 
to  favored  localities  and  favored  classes  of  passengers  at  the  expense  of 
other  localities  and  other  classes  of  passengers,  and  the  consequent  shifting 
of  costs,  in  the  form  of  excessive  rates,  onto  patrons  in  the  localities  or 
classes  discriminated  against.  In  re  Milw.  Suburban  &  Interurban  Ry. 
Rates,  1914,  13  R.  G.  475,  482-484. 


86 Discrimination. — As  between  passengers 

Lo"vr  fares  fixed  by  agreements  or  francliises. 

60.  Under  the  law  bearing  upon  the  discrimination  it  would  seem  that 
those  agreements  or  franchises  estabUshing  unusually  low  fares  should  be 
void  in  the  same  manner  as  those  establishing  high  fares  in  favor  of  the 
company.  The  law  should  be  applied  both  ways.  One  group  of  patrons 
should  not  have  the  right  for  a  fixed  term  of  years  to  receive  services  at 
the  expense  of  another  group  or  groups,  but  the  spirit  of  the  law  seems  to 
demand  that  equality  be  reestablished  whenever  changing  conditions 
bring  about  inequality.  In  re  Milwaukee  Suburban  8c  Inter  urban  Ry. 
Rates,  1914,  15  R.  G.  330,  351. 

Service  arrangement  for  convenience  of  one  class  of  patrons. 

61.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  street  railway  company  to  render  adequate 
service  to  the  full  extent  of  its  undertaking,  even  though  such  service  is 
not  remunerative,  so  long  as  the  respondent  assumes  to  operate  under  the 
permissive  ordinance.  Jones  v.  Wis.  Ry.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  518, 
523. 

Stopping  of  trains. 

62.  To  permit  an  agent  of  the  company  to  determine,  in  his  discretion, 
the  exigency  requiring  a  stop  in  any  particular  case,  seems  indefensible. 
The  matter  should  not  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  any  one  or  more  persons 
but  should  be  governed  by  a  regulation  of  general  application,  otherwise 
unjust  discrimination  will  of  necessity  occur.  Laun  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  5,  11. 

63.  Petitioner  is  not  discriminated  against  by  the  fact  that  limited 
trains  do  not  stop  at  Mequon,  and  all  other  stations  between  that  point 
and  Milwaukee.  Limited  trains  for  through  passengers  are  essential  to 
efficiency  of  service  on  long  haul  traffic,  for  if  they  should  stop  at  every 
station  on  the  line  their  usefulness  would  be  impaired  and  no  advantage 
whatever  would  accrue  in  the  establishment  of  such  class  of  service. 
Chromaster  v.  M.  N.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  734. 

Street  railway  tickets  including  skating  privileges. 

64.  By  issuing  street  railway  tickets  which  include  skating  at  the 
company's  paviUon,  the  street  railway  company  in  reality  pays  a  rebate 
of  5  cts.  per  ticket  to  each  holder  thereof,  assuming  5  cts.  to  be  the  custom- 
ary charge  for  the  privilege  of  skating.  The  inclusion  of  the  skating 
privilege  when  passengers  are  destined  to  the  pavilion  is,  in  effect,  an 
unjust  discrimination  against  all  passengers  riding  on  this  class  of  tickets 
between  any  other  two  points.  Fullmer  v.  Wausau  Street  R.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  520,  530-531. 

IX.    AS  BETWEEN  PRIVATE  CARS. 

Discrimination  in  hauling  private  cars. 

65.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  practice  or  custom  of  hauling  private 
cars  has  the  force  of  law,  and  as  previously  stated,  we  believe  that  the 
railway  company  is  correct  in  its  contention  that  it  is  not  a  common  car- 


Discrimination. — As  between  shippers 87 

rier  of  this  class  of  cars  and  that  it  has  a  right  to  carry  or  to  refuse  to  carry 
the  cars  of  one  or  more  of  all  classes  of  private  cars,  provided  that  no  dis- 
crimination is  made  among  individuals  of  the  same  class.  Hall  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  118,  121-123. 

X.  AS  BETWEEN  SHIPPERS. 

Car  service — Distribution  of  foreign  cars. 

66.  Permitting  shippers  to  draw  upon  general  railway  equipment  is 
not  in  accordance  with  good  practice  as  sanctioned  by  legal  authority. 
In  times  of  car  shortage  the  prorating  of  cars  among  shippers  must  in- 
clude private  cars  as  well  as  cars  of  foreign  lines  consigned  directly  to 
shippers.  It  is  true  that  private  car  companies  have  more  or  less  control 
over  their  equipment  because  of  contractual  relations  with  shippers,  yet, 
when  it  comes  to  dealing  with  system  cars  and  foreign  cars  the  company 
on  whose  lines  the  freight  originates  should  have  control  as  far  as  possible 
of  the  distribution  of  these  cars  in  order  to  prevent  discrimination  between 
shippers.  Colfax  Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.y  1914, 14  R.  G. 
86,  90,  91. 

Preference  in  furnishing  cars. 

67.  In  prorating  cars  among  shippers  at  a  station  in  times  of  car  short- 
age consideration  must  be  given  to  the  volume  of  business  done  by  each 
shipper,  the  character  of  the  commodities  to  be  shipped,  the  necessity  for 
the  immediate  movement  of  certain  commodities,  the  climate  and  char- 
acter of  the  weather  and  perhaps  other  facts.  There  is  no  hard  and  fast 
rule  by  which  the  matter  can  be  determined. .  All  that  the  law  requires  is 
that  the  carrier  act  justly  and  fairly  in  distributing  its  cars.  Colfax  Pro- 
duce Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  914,  14  R.  C.  86,  91. 

Carload  minima — Preference  in  distribution  of  various  sized  cars. 

68.  Variations  in  the  cubic  space  capacity  of  cars  taking  the  same 
minimum  weights  must  result  in  discrimination  between  shipments  of 
any  commodity  that  requires  the  maximum  amount  of  space  in  order  to 
load  to  minimum  weight.  Barker-Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  537,  545;  Standard  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St. 
P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  228,  237. 

Commodity  rates. 

69.  The  maintenance  of  differing  schedules  of  rates  by  carriers  of  the 
same  commodity  does  not  necessarily  involve  unjust  discrimination. 
Barker-Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G. 
615,  647. 

Competitive  conditions. 

70.  Where  there  is  more  or  less  free  and  open  competition  in  the 
market  for  any  given  commodity,  the  margin  of  profits  for  those  who  deal 
in  it  is  likely  to  be  comparatively  small.  In  such  cases  even  small  differ- 
ences in  the  rates  of  transportation  would  be  of  the  greatest  importance. 
In  the  grain  market,  for  instance,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  a  difference 


HH Discrimination. — As  between  shippers       

in  these  rates  of  a  fraction  of  a  cent  per  bushel  would  be  sufficient  to  keep 
dealers  entirely  out  of  the  market.  Duluth-Superior  Millg.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  598,  602. 

71.  Under  prevailing  competitive  condition  the  reduction  in  rates  to 
certain  other  mill  points  and  not  to  the  mills  of  the  petitioner  amounts  to 
an  unjust  discrimination.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  105,  113-114. 

Concentration  rates. 

72.  While  concentration  rates,  like  any  other  rates,  may  work  some 
hardship  on  those  who  are  so  situated  that  they  cannot  re-ship  the  product 
over  the  same  line  as  that  over  which  the  raw  material  of  these  products 
was  shipped  in,  they  are  not  unjustly  discriminatory  against  those  so 
situated.    Fergot  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  248,  253-254. 

Differences    in  rates  not  based  on  substantial   differences  in  the 
service. 

73.  Differences  in  freight  rates  that  are  not  based  on  substantial 
differences  in  the  service  are  apt  to  be  unjustly  discriminatory.  Duluth- 
Superior  Millg:  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  598,  602;  Wachsmuth 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  Bayfield  Transfer  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  253,  254,  260. 

Facilities  for  shipping  milk  and  cream. 

74.  Under  the  circumstances  it  seems  unreasonable  to  require  the 
shippers  at  Calhoun  to  haul  their  milk  to  the  station  by  6:45  a.  m.  during 
the  winter  months,  if  it  is  practicable  to  give  them  later  service  similar  to 
that  accorded  others  shippers.  Milw.  Milk  Sc  C.  Shippers  of  Calhoun  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  638,  640. 

Failure  to  separate  accounts  of  railroad  and  industrial  corpora- 
tion connected  therewith. 

75.  The  Marathon  County  Ry.  Co.  must  be  considered  as  a  separate 
and  independent  enterprise.  This  cannot  be  done  if  its  earnings  and  ex- 
penses are  confused  with  the  earnings  and  expenses  of  an  industrial  cor- 
poration, even  though  the  same  persons  practically  own  both.  The  law 
demands  an  equality  in  the  rates  charged  to  different  shippers.  Streveler  v. 
Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  831,  836. 

Grain  elevators — Leasing  of  elevators  to  favored  shipper  or  dealer. 

76.  We  cannot  escape  the  conclusion,  that  the  making  of  a  lease  of 
an  important  facility  in  the  transportation  business,  with  the  power  on 
the  part  of  the  lessee  to  deprive  the  public  of  the  use  of  such  facility, 
amounts  to  giving  such  lessee  "an  undue  and  unreasonable  preference  or 
advantage,"  within  the  meaning  of  sec.  1797-23  of  the  statutes  which  is 
expressly  forbidden  thereby.  Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  619,  634. 

Improper  classification. 

77.  A  car  of  berry  boxes  shipped  between  two  given  points  yields 
$33.73  more  per  car  in  revenue  to  the  railway  company  than  the  same 


Discrimination. — As  between  shippers 89 

weight  of  fruit  baskets  shipped  between  the  same  points.  This  is  a 
discrimination  against  berry  boxes  for  which  no  adequate  defense  can  be 
made.  The  entire  matter  of  classiftcation  and  rates  on  different  kinds 
of  fruit  packages  is  in  need  of  careful  revision.  Medford  Fruit  Pack- 
age Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  et  al,  1906,  1  R.  C.  44,  52. 

Milling  in  transit  privileges. 

78.  rf  milling  in  transit  privileges  result  in  a  relatively  lower  through 
rate  and  if  it  is  of  some  material  advantage  to  the  producers  to  shift  a 
part  of  the  freight  charges  on  the  raw  material  to  the  finished  product, 
it  is  conceivable  that  the  granting  of  such  privileges  to  some  and  with- 
holding them  from  others  may  result  in  unjust  discrimination.  In  re 
Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168,  222. 

Operation  of  a  spur  track  as  a  private  highway. 

79.  The  contract  with  the  Upham  Mfg.  Co.  for  the  operation  of  a 
spur  track  is  discriminatory  under  the  laws  of  the  state  of  Wisconsin; 
and  if  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  Wis.  Central  Ry.  Co.  to  operate  said  spur 
track  as  a  private  highway,  the  contract  in  question  was  ultra  vires. 
Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.  Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  739,  751. 

Proportional  rates. 

80.  The  proportional  rate  complained  of  is  unjustly  discrirhinatory, 
having  caused  financial  loss  to  the  complainant  and  should  be  canceled. 
Island  Paper  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  234,  242,  243,  246. 

Switching  rates. 

81.  Everybody  similarly  situated  within  the  switching  district 
specified  is  entitled  to  the  same  rate.  Morse  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  531,  532;  Duluth-Superior  Millg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  598,  602-603;  Stevens  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al, 
1913,  11  R.  C.  476,  478-479;  Milwaukee  Structural  Steel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  673,  674;  Barkhausen  Coal  Sc  Dock  Co.  et  al. 
V.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  172,  173,  174. 

82.  In  view  of  the  provisions  of  sec.  1797-22.2  of  the  statutes  the 
general  state  of  industry  in  the  Milwaukee  Terminal  District  and  other 
facts  brought  out,  the  reduction  in  rates  asked  for  in  behalf  of  shippers 
doing  their  own  sjjotting  and  hauling  cannot  be  granted  for  the  reason 
that  it  would  not  operate  alike  upon  all  shippers.  In  re  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
Switching  Rates  in  Milwaukee,  1914,  14  R.  C.  261,  282. 

Trainload  rates. 

83.  Trainload  rates  are  at  best  a  form  of  discrimination  in  favor  of 
the  large  shipper  and  against  the  small  shipper.  Their  use  has  often  been 
discouraged  by  this  Commission.  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  281,  283;  Nor.  Hemlock  Sc  Hardw'd  Mfrs.  Assn.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  241,  245;  Connor  Lbr.  &  Land  Co.  v, 
Laona  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  761,  765. 


90 Discrimination. — As  between  shippers 

Weights. 

84.  The  law  does  not  permit  charges  to  be  based  upon  anything  but 
actual  weights,  and  if  an  error  in  weighing  occurs  it  must  be  corrected 
and  charges  adjusted  accordingly.  Any  other  policy  would  manifestly 
afford  an  opportunity  for  the  indulgence  of  practices  subversive  of  the 
principal  purpose  of  the  statute  which  prohibits  unjust  discrimination. 
Wheeler-Timlin  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  434,  435. 

XL     AS  BETWEEN  STATIONS. 

a.    CAR   SERVICE. 

Preference  in  furnishing  cars  and  equipment. 

85.  A  railway  company  may  not  discriminate  against  any  particular 
station  in  the  distribution  of  equipment,  but  must  furnish  each  station 
its  equitable  proportion  of  the  available  equipment.  It  is  the  extent  of 
the  business  ordinarily  done  on  a  particular  line  or  at  a  particular  station 
which  properly  measures  the  carrier's  obligation  to  furnish  transportation. 
(Aijers  V.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1888,  71  Wis.  372.)  Colfax  Produce  Co.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  86,  90. 

XII.     AS  BETWEEN  SUBSCRIBERS. 

a.    TELEPHONE   RATES. 
In  general. 

86.  Telephone  companies,  like  other  public  utilities,  must  furnish 
reasonably  adequate  service  at  reasonable  rates  without  unjust  discrimi- 
nation among  their  patrons.  Connor  et  al.  v.  Marsh  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
589,  600. 

Classification  of  subscribers. 

87.  A  classification  in  telephone  service  must  avoid  unjust  discrimi- 
nations between  subscribers.  Olson  et  al.  v.  Wis,  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
440,  446;  Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  370,  373. 

DiflFerent  rates  for  different  classes  of  service, 

88.  The  favor  shown  to  residence  subscribers  may  have  had  its  origin 
in  a  plan  of  calculated  discrimination,  attempted  to  be  justified  on  the 
grounds  of  value  to  the  consumer.  In  that  light,  this  disparity  between 
telephone  rates  is  not  necessarily  an  unjust  discrimination,  Payne  et  al. 
V.  Wis.  Tel- Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  1,  57;  /n  re  Appl:  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel. 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  465,  472. 

Discrimination  due  to: — Combination  business  and  residence  rate. 

89.  The  so-called  combination  business  and  residence  rate  should 
not  be  enforced  because  of  its  discriminatory  tendency.  In  re  Appl. 
Bloomer  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  259,  265;  In  re  Appl.  People's  Tel.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  499,  506. 


Discriminaiion. — As  between  subscribers 91 

Different  rates  for  stockholders  and  nonstockholders. 

90.  It  is  unlawful  to  exact  a  higher  rate  from  subscribers  who  are  not 
stockholders,  directors  or  officers  than  from  subscribers  who  are  stock- 
holders, directors  or  officers  (sec.  1797m-90).  In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate 
Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  521,  544;  In  re  Appl.  Platteville,  Rewey  &  Ellen- 
boro  Tel  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  608,  610;  1912,  10  R.  G.  534,  540-541;  Knapp 
et  al.  V.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  180,  192;  In  re  Appl.  Rockland 
Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  402,  408;  In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co., 
1913, 11  R.  G.  666,  683;  In  re  Appl.  Beef  River  Val.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
126;  In  re  Appl.  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  405-406;  In  re  Appl. 
Marquette  Sc  Adams  County  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  750.  751. 

Different   rates  on  account  of  ownership  of  instrument  or 

facility. 

91.  A  subscriber  to  a  telephone  company  who  owns  his  instrument 
may  lease  such  instrument  to  the  company  at  a  reasonable  rental,  but 
from  no  viewpoint  could  an  excessive  rental  be  justified.  Such  a  con- 
struction of  the  law  (Wis.  Stat.  1797/n-90)  would  tend  to  reestablish  the 
systems  of  unjust  discriminations.  In  re  Invest.  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908, 
3  R.  G.  98,  104;  In  re  Appl.  Platteville,  Rewey  &  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  G.  608,  611. 

Dissimilar  rates  for  similar  service. 

92.  Any  variation  in  the  charge,  assuming  similar  conditions,  would 
be  unjust  discrimination  prohibited  by  law.  Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  G.  370,  372-373. 

Failure  to  keep  party  line  full. 

93.  While  we  are  unwilling  to  take  the  position  that  unless  party 


lines  can  always  be  kept  filled  to  the  exact  number  for  which  the  rate  is 
established  they  must  be  forthwith  abandoned  as  unjustly  discrimi- 
natory, we  are  nevertheless  of  the  opinion  that,  unleSiS  under  the  par- 
ticular circumstances  in  each  case  the  company  can  obtain  and  retain 
the  customary  number  of  subscribers  on  a  line  under  normal  conditions, 
the  service  becomes  unjustly  discriminatory.  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Tel. 
Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  546,  548;  Columbus  Adv.  Assn.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  414,  425;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  647,  648. 

Granting  rebates  for  repairs  and  equipment  rentals. 

94.  The  Gommission  has  determined  that  a  telephone  company  may 
have  subscribers  who  own  their  equipment  and  pay  them  a  reasonable 
rental  therefor,  but  rebates  in  the  form  of  repairs  or  equipment  rentals 
are  unlawful.  In  re  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  98,  112;  Knapp  et  al. 
V.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  180,  184;  In  re  Appl  Mosinee  Tel  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  709,  710. 

Number  of  calls. 

95.  It  appears  that  the  practice  has  been  to  make  a  charge  of  10  cts. 
per  call  between  the  hours  of  10  p.  m.  and  7  a.  m.  with  the  exception  of 
certain  subscribers,  who  make  regular  early  morning  calls  to  the  depot. 


92 Discriminaiion. — As  between  subscribers      

and  who  are  exempted  because  the  charges  otherwise  would  be  excessive. 
In  order  to  avoid  unjust  discrimination  it  is  ordered  that  all  subscribers 
are  to  have  the  privilege  of  making  early  morning  calls  to  the  depot  with- 
out extra  charge.  In  re  AppL  Mosinee  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  709,  711, 
712. 

a.   TELEPHONE   RATES. — Continued. 

Discrimination  due  to: — Time  of  payment  of  rates. 

96.  It  is  manifestly  unfair  to  those  subscribers  who  implicitly  obey 
the  rules  of  the  company  by  paying  quarterly  in  advance,  to  allow  others 
to  make  payments  at  their  leisure.  In  fact,  this  is  an  unjust  discrimina- 
tion by  express  terms  of  the  statute,  and  is  subject  to  heavy  penalties. 
In  re  AppL  Pewaukee- Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  420,  421. 

Private  branch  exchanges. 

97.  We  are  not  convinced  that  a  telephone  company  can  bind  itself 
by  contract  to  perform  a  service  indirectly  for  the  public,  or  any  part 
thereof,  which  will  result  in  the  public's  being  obliged  to  pay  more  for  such 
service  than  could  be  demanded  if  the  company  performed  it  directly  and 
entirely  by  means  of  its  own  facilities.  If  such  practice  were  permitted,  it 
would  open  the  door  to  discrimination,  and  thereby  afford  a  means  of 
evading  one  of  the  most  important  provisions  of  the  statute  and  render  it 
impotent  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  its  enactment.  National  Trav- 
elers" Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910.  5  R.  G.  678,  689-690;  Gross  et 
al.  V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  432. 

Substantial  differences  in  the  service. 

98.  There  is  an  interdependency  of  telephone  subscribers  which  is 
not  found  among  the  users  of  other  public  utility  services,  and  con- 
cessions in  rates  can  often  reasonably  be  made  to  certain  kinds  of  sub- 
scribers because  of  the  value  of  connections  therewith  to  other  subscrib- 
ers. This  consideration  works  a  substantial  difference  in  circumstances 
and  conditions  which  justifies  discrimination  by  the  grading  downward  of 
a  limited  class  of  users.  Olson  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  440, 
449-450, 

Switching  rates. 

99.  There  appear  to  be  no  conditions  which  make  it  proper  for  the 
petitioner  to  perform  switching  service  free  for  rural  lines  which  have 
other  connections  while  those  which  have  no  other  connections  pay  for 
the  service,  since  the  nature  of  the  service  furnished  by  the  petitioner 
in  the  two  cases  is  identical.  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.  Crawford  Co.  F.  Mut. 
Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  32,  37. 

Toll  rates. 

100.  The  Ettrick  Tel.  Go.  complains  that  it  is  unjustly  discriminated 
against  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  its  subscribers  are  compelled  to  pay  a 
toll  charge  of  15  cents  per  message  for  service  over  the  La  Grosse  Tel.  Go.'s. 
line  between  Galesville  and  La  Grosse  while  the  Western  Wisconsin  Tel. 


Display  or  Sign  Lighting 93 

Co.  is  allowed  to  offer  unlimited  service  over  this  line  to  its  subscribers 
under  a  flat  rate  per  year.  Held:  The  rates  complained  of  are  not  unjustly 
discriminatory  and  the  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  is  not  burdened  unjustly  because 
of  their  existence.  The  complaint  is  dismissed.  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Western  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  et  ai,  1914,  14  R.  C.  180,  185. 

b.   TELEPHONE   SERVICE. 

Extension  of  lines. 

101.  The  fact  that  the  persons  to  whom  the  respondent  desires  to 
extend  its  service  are  shareholders,  is  immaterial,  for  service  must  be 
rendered  to  shareholders  upon  the  same  terms  and  conditions  as  to  other 
subscribers.  Tri-State  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.  v.  St.  Croix  F.  M.  Tel  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  437,  439. 

Preference  in  calls  as  between  city  and  rural  subscribers. 

102.  In  answering  local  and  rural  calls,  the  business  should  be  handled 
as  far  as  practicable  in  the  order  in  which  the  calls  come  in.  Boscobel 
Tel.  Co.  V.  Crawford  Co.  F.  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  ai,  1912,  11  R.  C.  32,  34. 

Refusal  of  service. 

103.  Past  misconduct  of  a  subscriber  will  not  justify  the  refusal  of 
future  service  to  him  unless  it  has  been  habitual  or  so  frequent  and  under 
such  circumstances  that  his  assurance  of  reformation  cannot  be  reasonably 
relied  upon  as  sincere.  In  re  Invest.  Pulaski  Merchants'  &  Farmers* 
Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  558,  562-563;  In  re  Refusal  Oconto  Rural  Tel.  Co. 
to  Extend  Service,  1914,  15  R.  G.  277,  279. 

Silent  Number"  telephones. 

104.  The  maintenance  of  silent  number  service  cannot  be  regarded 
as  an  unjust  discrimination  on  the  part  of  the  telephone  company  and 
there  is  no  other  ground  upon  which  the  practice  can  be  condemned. 
In  re  Use  of  Silent  Numbers  by  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  587. 

XIII.  AS  BETWEEN  TRANSFER  COMPANIES. 

Conduct  of  railroad  company  toward  transfer  companies. 

105.  No  partiality  should  be  shown  in  giving  or  withholding  necessary 
information  in  the  notification  of  arrivals  or  in  the  prompt  delivery  of 
shipments.     Cohn  v.  C  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  569,  576. 

DISK  HARROWS. 

Classification  under  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad,  200. 

DISPLAY  OR  SIGN  LIGHTING. 

Rates  for  display  or  sign  lighting,  see  Rates— Electric,  7. 


94  Distance  Relations 


DISTANCE  RELATIONS. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  group  rates,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  56-58. 


DISTANCE  TARIFF  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  47. 

DISTRIBUTION  SYSTEM  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  distribution  system  expenses  in  the  determination  of 
unit  costs  for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  16-17. 

DISTURBANCE  OF  RATES. 

Change  of  relation  of  rates  to  which  business  has  been  adjusted,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  54. 

DIVER'S  OUTFIT. 

Article  constituting  personal  baggage,  see  Carriers,  3. 

DIVIDENDS. 

Interest  on  bonds  and  dividends  on  stock  of  railroad  company  apportioned 
between  intrastate  and  interstate  traffic  on  basis  of  miles  of  road, 
see  Accounting,  134. 

DIVISION  OF  JOINT  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  70-71;  Railroad  Commission,  128. 

DIVISION  OF  TERRITORY. 

Contract  between  two  telephone  companies  dividing  the  territory  in 
which  they  render  service  is  valid,  if  such  division  is  not  contrary 
to  public  policy,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  44. 

DOCK. 

Petition  for  use  of  a  private  commercial  dock  for  pubUc  use,  dismissed, 
see  Station  Facilities,  9. 

DONATION  OF  LAND. 

See  Land. 


Earnings  95 

DOORS. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  doors,  see  Rates — Railroad,  91. 

DRAYAGE  CHARGES. 

Claim  for  drayage  charges  cannot  be  enforced  in  a  reparation  proceeding, 
nor  in  any  proceeding  before  the  Commission,  see  Reparation, 
121. 

DREDGING. 

Dredging  of  streams  to  facilitate  operation  of  flood  gates  in  water  power 
dams,  see  Navigable  Waters,  3,  8. 

DRIED  BREWERS'   GRAINS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains,  see  Rates — Railroad 
230. 

DUPLICATION  OF  EQUIPMENT. 

Electric  utilities,  duplication  of  plants  usually  wasteful,  see  Electric 

Utilities,  3. 
Public  Utilities  Law,  scope  and  purpose  of  law  with  respect  to  duphcation 
of  telephone  lines  within  the  same  territory,  see  Public  Utilities 
Law,  6. 
Telephone  utiUties,  duplication  of  equipment  of  established  utility  not 
ordinarily  the  remedy  for  excessive  rates  or  inadequate  service, 
see  Telephone  Utilities,  17. 
duplication  of  equipment  of  established  utility,  when  permitted,  see 

Telephone  Utilities,  14-16. 
duphcation  of  equipment  of  established  utility  without  authority 
from  the  Commission,  illegal,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  18-19. 

EARNING  VALUE. 

Earning  value  as  matter  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities 
see  Valuation,  26. 

EARNINGS. 

Earnings  from  intrastate  traffic  as  element  considered  in  making  railroad 
rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  143. 
as  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  185. 


96  Earnings  per  Unit: of  Traffic 


EARNINGS  PER  UNIT  OF  TRAFFIC. 

For  high  grade  freight,  see  Rates — Railroad,  20. 
For  low  grade  freight,  see  Rates — Railroad,  21. 

EASEMENTS. 

Value  claimed  for  easements  over  private  right  of  way  which  subsequently 
became  public  streets,  see  Valuation,  97. 

ECONOMIES  IN  OPERATION. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utility,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  45-46. 

EDGINGS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  edgings  and  other  waste  lumber  products,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  295. 

EGGS. 

See  also  Butter  and  Eggs. 
Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages,  see  Labels,  1. 

ELECTRIC  RAILWAYS. 

See  Interurban  Railways;  Street  Railways. 

ELECTRIC  RATES. 

See  Rates — Electric. 

ELECTRIC  SIGNALS. 

Installation  of  electric  signals,  see  Railroads,  20-23,  58. 

ELECTRIC  UTILITIES. 

Certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity,  see  Certificate  of 
Public  Convenience  and  Necessity,  1-2. 

Cost  of  service  of  electric  utilities,  determination  of  unit  costs,  see 
Accounting,  8-34., 

Depreciation,  rate  of  depreciation  of  electric  plants,  see  Depreciation, 
28-34. 

Discrimination  as  between  consumers  of  electric  utility,  see  Discrimina- 
tion, 7-27. 

Minimum  charges  for  electric  utilities,  see  Minimum  Charges,  1-7. 


Electric  Utilities. — Mun.  acquisition — terms,  etc.        97 

ACCOUNTING. 
See  Accounting,  1-2,  8-34,  186. 


I.   CONTROL  AND   REGULATION   IN   GENERAL. 
11.   ESTABLISHMENT,   CONSTRUCTION  AND   MAINTENANCE. 

III.  MUNICIPAL  ACQUISITION. 

a.   Compensation  for  property,   b.   Power  of  municipality  to  acquire 

public  utility. 

IV.  OPERATION. 

a.  Conditions  of  operation.  e.   Requirements   as   to   service   and 

b.  Management.  facilities. 

c.  Operating  records.  f.   Standards  of  service. 

d.  Quality  of  service. 

V.   RIGHT  OF  WAY  AND   OTHER  INTERESTS   IN   LAND. 


I.  CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  IN  GENERAL. 

Ordinance  affecting  rates  or  service  of  public  utility — Review  by 
Commission. 

1.  Sec.  1797/n-87  of  the  statutes  was  designed  to  give  the  Commission 
the  power  to  pass  upon  the  reasonableness  of  any  ordinance,  contract  or 
resolution  of  a  common  council  directly  affecting  the  rates  or  service  of 
any  public  utility  or  indirectly  tending  to  place  an  unnecessary  burden 
upon  the  utility  which  might  result  in  embarrassing  it  in  the  performance 
of  its  public  function  in  the  manner  required  by  the  Public  Utilities  Law. 
In  re  AppL  Madison  G.  dc  El.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  293,  302-303. 

Ordinance  requiring  removal  of  poles  and  wires  of  electric  utility — 
Reasonableness  of  ordinance. 

2.  There  appears  to  be  no  doubt  that  a  municipality  may  not,  in  the 
supposed  exercise  of  the  police  power,  pass  a  valid  ordinance  resting  on 
purely  aesthetic  considerations.  Such  grounds  may  be  given  weight,  and 
even  much  weight,  but  in  themselves  they  are  not  sufficient.  Wis.  Tel. 
Co.  V.  City  of  La  Crosse,  1911,  7  R.  C.  435,  444;  In  re  Appl.  Madison  G.  & 
El.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  293,  300. 

II.  ESTABLISHMENT,  CONSTRUCTION  AND  MAINTENANCE. 

Duplication  of  plants. 

3.  Duplication  of  plants  is  a  waste  of  capital  whenever  the  services 
can  be  adequately  furnished  by  one  plant.  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  Sc 
El.  Co.y  1907,  2  R.  C.  3,  5. 

III.  MUNICIPAL  ACQUISITION— TERMS  AND  CONDITIONS  OF 

SALE  AND  PURCHASE. 

a.    COMPENSATION   FOR   PROPERTY. 

Compensation  to  be  determined  by  the  Commission. 

4.  Section  1797/n-82  of  the  Wisconsin  Statutes  provides  that,  in  case 
of  the  acquiring  of  a  public  utility  by  a  municipfdity,  the  Railroad  Com- 
mission shall  fix  and  determine  just  compensation  to  be  paid  for  the  tak- 


98        Electric  Utilities.— Mun.  acquisition — terms,  etc. 

ing  of  the  property  of  such  utihty  actually  used  and  useful  for  the 
convenience  of  the  pubhc,  and  also  the  terms  and  conditions  of  sale  and 
purchase.    In  re  Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  70. 

a.    COMPENSATION   FOR   PROPERTY. — Continued. 

Compensation  determined  in  particular  cases. 

5.  Compensation  determined  by  the  Commission  in  the  following 
cases  of  municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utilities.  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  & 
P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67;  In  re  Kaukauna  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  409; 
In  re  Purchase  Brodhead  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  88;  In  re  Appl. 
Kaukauna  G.  El  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913, 12  R.  C.  189;  In  re  Purchase  Manitowoc 
El.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  13  R.  C.  452;  In  re  Purchase  of  El.  Plant  by  the  Vill.  of 
Sharon,  1914,  15  R.  C.  238;  In  re  Purchase  of  Grand  Rapids  El.  Co's 
Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  258;  In  re  Purchase  EL  Plant  of  Prairie  du  Sac 
Mill  (Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  360. 

Diminution  of  value  of  remaining  property. 

6.  The  law  imposes  upon  the  municipality  the  obligation  of  purchasing 
only  such  property  of  the  public  utility  as  is  both  actually  used  and 
useful  for  the  convenience  of  the  public.  Nevertheless,  the  fact  that  tjie 
value  of  the  remaining  property  will  be  lessened,  because  of  the  severance 
and  removal  of  the  portion  taken,  may  be  taken  into  account  and  com- 
pensated for  in  determining  the  just  compensation  which  the  Commission 
provides  shall  be  paid  for  the  property  actually  taken.  In  re  Cashton  Lt. 
&  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  80-81. 

Going  value. 

7.  The  element  of  going  value,  created  by  the  investments  made  in 
developing  the  business,  and  in  addition  to  the  cost  of  the  physical  struc- 
ture, must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  fixing  value  for  just  compensation. 
In  re  Cashton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  85-86. 

Good  will. 

8.  No  compensation  is  to  be  allowed  for  good  will  in  determining 
just  compensation  for  the  property  of  a  public  utihty  which  enjoys  a 
monopoly.    In  re  Cashton  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  84-85. 

Indeterminate  permit. 

9.  The  moment  the  municipality  exercises  its  option  to  purchase  the 
plant  of  a  pubhc  utility  operating  under  an  indeterminate  permit,  the  life 
of  such  permit  is  terminated,  and  henceforth  the  same  possesses  no  more 
value  than  a  franchise  for  a  definite  term  of  years  upon  the  expiration  of 
the  term.    In  re  Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  84. 

Present  value. 

10.  The  claim  that  the  original  cost  of  certain  units  should  be  accepted 
as  the  proper  value  in  determining  just  compensation  for  the  property  of  a 
public  utility,  is  without  any  reasonable  basis  for  support,  since  present 
value  differs  from  original  cost,  in  that  all  property,  excepting  land, 
depreciates.    In  re  Cashton  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  78. 


Electric  Utilities. — Operatian 99 

Units  of  plant  as  parts  of  a  going  concern. 

11.  In  placing  a  value  on  the  physical  property  of  a  public  utility, 
the  units  of  a  plant  should  not  be  valued  as  independent  entities,  but  as 
units  of  a  going  concern  performing  public  utility  service.  In  re  Cashton 
Lt.  Sz  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67.  78. 

b.   POWER  OF  MUNICIPALITY  TO  ACQUIRE  PUBLIC  UTILITY. 

Action  by  municipal  council — Regularity — Constitutionality. 

12.  The  constitutionality  of  the  proceedings  was  challenged  because 
the  constitution  prohibits  a  municipality  from  taking  "private  property  for 
public  use  against  the  consent  of  the  owner,  without  the  necessity  thereof 
being  first  established  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury."  Held:  The  right  was 
waived  by  the  utility  by  the  acceptance  of  an  indeterminate  permit,  as 
provided  in  section  1797m-78.  In  re  Purchase  of  Grand  Rapids  El.  Go's 
Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  258,  265,  266. 

Contract  contained  in  franchise. 

13.  The  only  contract  between  the  city  and  the  company  respecting 
the  matter  of  purchase  was  that  contained  in  the  original  franchise,  which 
does  not  stipulate  the  price  to  be  paid.  If  it  did,  it  would  be  inherent  in , 
and  part  of  the  consideration  of  the  franchise.  Under  the  rulings  of  the 
court  in  Gity  of  La  Grosse  v.  La  Grosse  G.  Sc  El.  Go.,  145  Wis.  4Q8,  and 
Galumet  Service  Go.  v.  Ghilton,  148  Wis.  334,  such  provision  would  become 
ineffective  and  non-existent  upon  the  surrender  of  the  franchise.  In  re 
Purchase  oj  Grand  Rapids  El.  Go's  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  258,  266,  267. 


Councilmen  and  mayor  stockholders  in  utility. 

14.  When  the  company  voluntarily  surrendered  its  franchise  and  re- 
ceived in  lieu  thereof  an  indeterminate  permit  by  operation  of  law,  the 
contract,  if  any  resulted  therefrom,  was  between  the  state  and  the  company 
and  not  between  the  company  and  the  city,  the  consent  of  the  latter  not 
even  being  required  to  make  the  exchange  effective.  In  re  Purchase  of 
Grand  Rapids  El.  Go's  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  258. 

Time  of  giving  notice  to  utility  or  Commission. 

15.  The  provision  of  sec.  17977n-81  is  not  imperative  as  to  the  time 
of  giving  notice.  No  rights  of  the  city  or  company  were  injuriously  affected 
by  the  delay,  and  a  new  election  to  determine  the  question  of  purchase 
would  cause  great  expense  to  the  city  without  benefiting  any  one  con- 
cerned. In  re  Purchase  of  Grand  Rapids  El.  Go's  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
258,  263,  264. 

IV.  OPERATION. 

a.    CONDITIONS   OF   OPERATION. 

Consumer's  load. 

16.  In  the  absence  of  such  data  as  would  show  the  actual  part  of 
feach  consumer's  load  which  is  active,  it  may  not  be  far  wrong  to  assume 
that  60  per  cent  of  the  business  installations  and  35  percent  of  the  resi- 


100 Electric  Utilities. — Operation 

dence  installations  are  active.     In  re  Appl.  Durand  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  334,  344. 

a.    CONDITIONS   OF   OPERATION. — Continued. 

Demand  factor. 

17.  As  electric  current  cannot  profitably  be  stored,  the  capacity  of 
the  plant  must  be  equal  to  the  greatest  demand  that  may  be  made  upon 
them.  Their  capacity  must  in  fact  be  entirely  out  of  proportion  to  the 
average  demand  for  current.  In  re  Appl.-La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1907, 
2  R.  C.  3,  21;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val  Rij.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
311,  319. 

Load  factor. 

18.  A  reported  demand  equal  to  from  80  per  cent  to  100  per  cent  of 
total  connected  load  cannot  be  said  to  be  at  all  a  representative  figure,  and 
the  average,  affected  by  these  high  ratios,  does  not  furnish  a  fair  basis 
of  comparison.  City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G. 
132,  144. 

19.  Ordinarily  small  connected  loads  result  in  smaller  fluctuations 
of  the  active  load  from  season  to  season  than  large  connected  loads,  with 
a  consequent  better  load  factor  and  less  idle  plant  equipment.  In  re 
Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  753. 

.20.  Investigation  in  several  cities  indicates  that  the  ratio  of  the 
active  to  the  connected  load  is  usually  about  40  per  cent  for  residences  and 
65  to  70  per  cent  for  business  places.  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  755. 

21.  Tests  made  in  various  cities  show  that  the  active  load  of  installa- 
tions of  less  than  10  h.  p.  is  ordinarily  about  90  per  cent  of  the  total  load 
connected,  while  for  installations  of  20  to  30  h.  p.  it  is  about  60  per  cent. 
In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  761. 

22.  The  proportion  of  the  active  to  the  connected  load  was  placed  at 
50  per  cent  and  65  per  cent,  respectively,  for  commercial  lighting  and  for 
power.  Kenosha  EL  Ry.  Co.  v.  Kenosha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  119, 
123. 

Ratio  of  current  sold    to    current  delivered    at    the    switchboard. 

23.  In  commercial  lighting,  losses  of  current  represented  by  the  differ- 
ence between  the  current  delivered  at  the  switchboard  and  the  current 
sold  ordinarily  vary  from  15  to  35  per  cent  of  the  amount  generated.  In 
re  AppL  Red  Cedar  VaL  EL  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  758. 

b.  MANAGEMENT. 

Financial  transactions. 

24.  The  plants  should  be  treated  as  a  business  enterprise  and  kept 
separate  from  other  municipal  functions.  In  re  AppL  Lake  Mills  Lt.  & 
W.  Comm.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  160,  163-164. 

25.  The  utility  secures  its  power  from  the  Stevens  Point  Power  Go., 
but  inasmuch  as  the  utility  is  the  sole  customer  of  the  power  company  and 
the  two  companies  have  identical  personnels  of  owners  and  executives,  it 
appears,  that  the  companies  are  but  nominally  separate  entities.  In  re 
Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350,  352. 


Electric  Utilities. — Opevdtion  , -.  ^101  , 


26.  Materials  sold  by  a  utility  should  be  sold  at  a  price  high  enough 
to  cover  at  least  the  cost  of  handling  in  addition  to  the  cost  of  the  goods, 
and  in  the  cost  of  handling  should  be  included  not  only  such  items  as 
freight  and  cartage,  but  also  the  losses  due  to  breakage,  necessary  waste 
and  other  costs  of  a  similar  nature.  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sz  El. 
Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534,  551. 

c.  OPERATING    RECORDS. 

Necessity  of  keeping  records. 

27.  The  keeping  of  a  daily  station  log  sheet  is  of  primary  importance. 
Such  a  sheet  should  furnish  a  daily  record  of  output  for  different  classes 
of  service  and  should  also  indicate  the  demands  made  upon  the  plant  at 
frequent  intervals.  These  data  are  essential  if  the  utility  professes  to 
return  a  complete  and  adequate  annual  report  to  the  Commission.  In 
re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350,  355. 

Physical  data. 

28.  As  a  basis  for  unit  costs  of  service  the  physical  data  are  highly 
important,  for  only  through  such  units  can  a  comparison  of  all  utilities 
be  obtained.  In  a  rate  investigation,  the  accuracy  of  expense  appor- 
tionments depends  largely  on  the  correctness  of  physical  data  on  hand. 
In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350,  360. 

d.  QUALITY   OF   SERVICE. 

Performance  of  street  lighting  system. 

29.  Utilities  ordered  to  furnish  street  lighting  service  equal  to 
standard  provided  in  contract.  City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  El.  Lt. 
Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  132;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  G.  353. 

Candle-power  measurement. 

30.  Candle-power  measurements  in  a  certain  direction,  although 
when  taken  alone  are  considered  by  some  experts  to  be  unreliable  as  a 
lamp  rating,  are  some  indication  of  the  relative  normal  operation  of  lamps 
having  the  same  characteristics  of  light  distribution.  City  of  Sheboygan 
V.  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  353,  393. 

Candle-power  rating. 

31.  It  is  generally  accepted  by  illuminating  engineers  that  the 
term  "2,000  candle  power"  is  a  nominal  rating  not  indicative  of  the 
actual  illumination  of  the  lamp.  City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  El.  Lt. 
Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  132,  157-158. 

Comparison  of  illuminating  qualities  of  arc  lamps. 

32.  The  illuminating  qualities  of  6.6  ampere  a.  c.  enclosed  arcs  and 
9.6  ampere  d.  c.  open  arcs  were  compared.  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca 
El.  Lt.  &  Ry.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  G.  586,  642;   9  R.  G.  310,  313. 


102  „ .. .,   ,   „ .    .  Elettric,  Utilities. — Operation 

;^'r^'^^,'^'^r>'^   :;?.,; >\-'.>^> 

d.    QUALITY   OF   SERVICE. — Continued. 

Performance  of  street  lighting  system. — Illumination   measure- 
ments. 

33.  There  is  still  considerable  difference  of  opinion  concerning  which 
reference  plane  should  be  used  in  making  tests  of  street  illumination.  It 
is  safe  to  say  that  when  no  other  observations  are  considered,  there  are 
disadvantages  arising  from  the  use  of  any  particular  plane.  City  of 
Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  353,  376-377. 

34.  It  appears  that  a  comparison  of  light  sources  for  street  lighting 
purposes  by  the  amount  of  illumination  that  is  produced  at  a  certain 
distance  from  the  lamp  leaves  important  factors  unconsidered.  In  re 
Jt.  Appl:  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  Sc  Ry.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  C.  586,  626. 

Substitution  of  6.6  ampere  a.c.  enclosed  for  9.6  d.c.  open  arcs. 

35.  It  is  the  finding  of  the  Commission  that  the  city  of  Waupaca, 
under  the  circumstances,  has  not  suffered  such  damage  by  reason  of  the 
substitution  of  the  a.  c.  enclosed  lamps  for  the  d.  c.  open  lamps  as  to 
entitle  it  to  claim  any  reduction  from  the  contract  price  of  the  street 
lighting  service  furnished  it  by  the  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  Ry.  Co.  from  the 
time  of  the  change  in  the  installation  of  street  lamps  up  to  the  present  time. 
In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  Sc  Ry.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  C. 
586;  9  R.  C.  310,  318.         ' 

Wattage  measurements. 

36.  Wattage  tests,  although  not  indicative  of  the  amount  of  light 
given  by  an  arc  lamp,  are,  when  measured  at  the  lamp,  an  indication  of 
the  condition  of  a  series  lamp's  adjustment.  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboy- 
gan Ry.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  353,  393. 

Wattage  rating. 

37.  Illuminating  engineers  are  by  no  means  agreed  that  the  wattage 
basis  is  the  proper  basis  for  rating  arc  lamps,  but  it  appears,  in  view  of  the 
provisions  of  the  existing  contract,  that  it  is  the  only  practicable  one  for 
use.  City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  132, 
157-158. 

e.    REQUIREMENTS    AS   TO   SERVICE   AND   FACILITIES. 

In  general. 

38.  Under  sec.  1797/n-3  (ch.  499,  laws  of  1907),  "Every  public 
utility  is  required  to  furnish  reasonably  adequate  service  and  facilities." 
State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  at.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501, 
623. 

Adequacy  of  service — In  general. 

39.  While  a  utility  is  entitled  to  reasonable  rates  for  the  services  it 
renders,  it  has  not  the  right  to  exact  more  than  this.  It  must  also  see 
that  the  services  it  renders  are  adequate  and  that  they  meet  all  reasonable 
requirements  in  this  respect.  It  is  important  that  the  interests  of  the 
public  it  serves  should  be  as  fully  protected  as  those  of  its  own.  In  re 
Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  3,  30. 


Electric  Utilities. — Operation 103 

40.  The  matter  of  adequacy  of  electric  service  was  passed  upon  in 
the  following  cases.  In  re  Invest.  La  Crosse  Gas  &  EI.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
670;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
501;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1;  Citij  of  Manitowoc 
u.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360;  In  re  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W. 
P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  397;  City  of  Kaukauna  v.  Kaukauna  Gas,  El.  Lt. 
&  P.  Co.,  1910,  5.  R.  G.  695;  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  506;  In  re  Invest.  R.  Connor  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  80;  Wenzel  et  al.  v. 
Clifton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  222;  In  re  Invest.  Bayfield  Mun.  W.  & 
Lt.  Plant,  1913,  11  R.  C.  686;  Rosencrans  et  al.  v.  Prairie  City  El.  Co., 

1913,  12  R.  C.  413;  In  re  Service  Janesville  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  570; 
Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  409;  In  re  Invest. 
Service  Neshonoc  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  637;  In  re  Service  Dodgeville 
El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914, 13  R.  C.  642;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  C.  215;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  350;  Jones  et  al  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121; 
Filber  et  al.  v.  III.  Northern  Utilities  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  383;  In  re  Appl. 
United  Heat  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.  of  Delavan,  1914,  15  R.  G.  505;  In  re  Invest, 
Waterloo  Mun.  W.  <Sc  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534. 

Continuous  service. 


41.  The  respondent  should  be  required  to  furnish  day  service  if  an 
amount  of  day  business  can  be  secured  which  will  be  sufficient  to  provide 
a  reasonable  return  on  the  property  used,  without  necessitating  an 
increase  in  the  rates  to  lighting  users.  It  is  ordered  that  the  respondent 
furnish  continuous  service,  with  power  rates  determined  by  the  Gom- 
mission.    Rosencrans  et  al.  v.  Prairie  City  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  413. 

Definition  of  adequacy. 

42.  In  formulating  definitions  of  adequate  service  and  rules  for 
securing  the  same,  recognition  must  be  made  of  the  rapidly  changing 
conditions  to  which  the  electrical  energy  supply  industry  is  subjected. 
It  is  also  obviously  desirable  that  rules  shall  not  be  adopted  which  will 
interfere  with  the  natural  growth  or  progress  of  the  industry.  In  re 
Standards  for  Gas  &  El.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  G.  632,  651. 

Inspection  of  consumers'  installations. 

43.  The  rules  of  electric  service  formulated  by  the  Gommission  do 
not  make  periodic  inspections  of  all  installations  compulsory,  for  the 
reason  that  some  consumers  object  to  the  inspection  of  their  installations 
as  an  unnecessary  interference,  but  the  rules  are  designed  to  secure  lamp 
inspection  service  for  such  consumers  as  desire  it.  (Rule  27,  In  re  Standards 
for  Gas  and  Electric  Service,  1913,  12  R.  G.  418.)  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin 
Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  135. 

^ Jurisdiction  of  municipal  council. 


44.  The  municipal  council  has  ample  power  under  the  law  to  regulate 
the  service  of  respondent  lighting  company,  to  require  additions  and 
extensions  to  its  plant  and  to  provide  a  penalty  for  noncompliance  with 
its  orders.     Chilton  v.  Wis.  El.  Service  Co.  et  al.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  326,  332. 


104 Electric  Utilities. — Operation 

e.    REQUIREMENTS    AS    TO    SERVICE    AND    FACILITIES. — Continued. 

Adequacy  of  service. — Use  of  electric    flatirons    prohibited  under 
certain  conditions. 

45.  The  utility  suggested  a  rule  permitting  users  of  flatirons  to  have 
service  during  the  summer  months  for  one  forenoon  of  each  week,  and  to 
forbid  the  use  of  flatirons  in  the  forenoon  during  the  winter.  Although  this 
may  not  be  very  convenient  to  the  users  of  flatirons,  it  appears  to  be  almost 
necessary  for  the  satisfactory  operation  of  the  plant.  In  re  Gilmanton 
Mill  Sc  El  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  152,  155. 

Appliances  for  the  measurement  of  product  or  service — Duty  of 
utility  to  provide  meters. 

46.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  utility  to  furnish  meters  unless  exempted 
from  so  doing  by  the  Commission.  Electric  Theater  et  al.  v.  Lodi  El.  Lt. 
Plant,  1911,  7  R.  G.  745,  753;  In  re  Appl.  Bruce  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1912, 
9  R.  G.  474,  476;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
260,  303,  318;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52,  54; 
In  re  Appl.  Endeavor  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  448,  451;  In  re 
Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534,  547. 

47.  The  utility  was  ordered  to  install  meters  in  the  following  cases: 
Electric  Theater  et  al.  v.  Lodi  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  7  R.  G.  745;  Wenzel  et  al. 
V.  Clifton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  222;  Citij  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander 
Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  406;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sz  Lt.  Comm., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  260;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52. 

Duty  of  utility  to  provide  transformers  and  lightning   ar- 
resters. 

48.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  public  utility  supplying  electricity  for  light 
and  power  to  provide  such  devices  as  are  necessary  for  the  reasonable 
protection  of  its  customers  and  the  public.  It  is  unreasonable  to  require 
the  consumer  to  bear  the  expense  of  installing  a  new  transformer  and  the 
necessary  lightning  arresters.  Such  devices  should  be  furnished  by  the 
utility  and  maintained  by  it.  In  re  Refusal  of  Service  by  Bloomer  El.  Lt. 
iSc  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  612. 


Station  meters. 


49.  It  is  deemed  advisable,  in  view  of  the  inadequate  records  kept  by 
the  utility,  to  require  the  utility  to  install  a  station  watt-hour  meter  to 
measure  the  output  of  the  plant.  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Withee,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  704,  710. 

Utility  exempt  from  duty  of  supplying  meters  in  particular 

instances. 

50.  It  appears  that  the  interest  of  all  parties  concerned  will  be  better 
served  by  requiring  consumers  to  continue  to  supply  their  meters  than  by 
having  the  utility  supply  them  and  charge  a  necessarily  higher  rate  for 
current.  In  re  Appl.  Gilmanton  Mill  &  El.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  152, 
154,  156. 


Electric  Utilities. — Rates 105 

Refusal  of  service  for  failure  of  consumer  to  replace  burned  out 
transformer. 

51.  Utility  ordered  to  reinstate  electric  service  for  lighting  and 
power  purposes  to  complainant,  and  furnish  and  maintain  at  its  own  ex- 
pense such  transformers,  lightning  arresters,  and  other  equipment  as  are 
necessary  to  supply  such-service  in  a  reasonably  safe  and  reliable  manner. 
In  re  Refusal  of  Service  by  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  612. 

Refusal  of  service  for  nonpayment  of  bills  rendered. 

52.  A  public  utility  inay  refuse  to  furnish  service  unless  the  charges 
for  such  service  are  prepaid,  or  a  sum  of  money  sufficient  to  secure  the 
payment  for  services  rendered  during  any  future  interval  for  which  credit 
is  extended,  or  a  bond  to  secure  such  payment  is  deposited  with  the 
utility,  but  the  utility  may  not  condition  the  furnishing  of  service  upon 
the  liquidation  of  indebtedness  to  the  utility  for  past  service.  In  re  Re- 
fusal of  Service  by  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  518. 

f.    STANDARDS   OF   SERVICE. 

Standards  established  by  Commission. 

53.  Both  the  direct  mandates  of  the  statutes  and  the  variations  in 
standards  of  service  actually  in  existence  in  the  state  of  Wisconsin  make 
it  imperative  for  this  Commission  to  prescribe  uniform,  standards  of  serv- 
ice for  public  utihties.  The  present  order  is  confined  to  gas  and  electric 
service.  The  preliminary  investigations,  conferences  and  other  work 
preceding  the  adoption  of  these  standards  are  discussed  and  a  series  of  rules 
prescribed  for  the  guidance  of  the  management  of  gas  and  electric  companies. 
While  these  rules  apply  to  every  gas  and  electric  plant  in  the  state,  on  appli- 
cation to  the  Commission  and  for  sufficient  cause  shown,  such  modifications, 
exemptions  and  concessions  may  be  made  with  reference  to  these  rules  as  the 
facts  in  each  case  shall  warrant.  Without  an  express  order  of  the  Com- 
sion  authorizing  it,  every  departure  from  these  rules  will  be  regarded  as  a 
violation  of  the  law.  In  re  Standards  for  Gas  <&  El.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
632. 

54.  Under  authority  of  sec.  17977n-23  of  the  Wis.  Statutes,  the  Com- 
mission herein  issued  an  order  superseding  the  original  order  relating  to 
standards  for  gas  and  electric  service  (2  R.  C.  632).  The  present  order 
has  been  made  after  extensive  investigation  and  collection  of  data. 
In  re  Standards  for  Gas  and  El.  Service,  1913,  12  R.  C.  418. 

55.  Electrolytic  ampere-hour  meters  require  different  treatment 
from  the  motor  type  of  electric  meter,  which  was  the  only  one  contem- 
plated at  the  time  the  rules  of  service  were  formulated.  Interpretations  of 
the  rules  and  standards  for  gas  and  electric  service  (2  R.  C.  632)  are 
made  with  special  reference  to  electrolytic  ampere-hour  meters.  In  re 
Merrill  Ry.  <Sc  Ltg.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  270. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — Electric. 


106  Electric  Utilities. — Right  of  way,  etc. 


V.     RIGHT  OF  WAY  AND  OTHER  INTERESTS  IN  LAND. 

Rights  in  and  use  of  highways  and  public  places. 

56.  The  rights  obtained  by  pubHc  service  corporations  to  occupy 
the  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  merely  confer  rights  as  against  the  public. 
Abutting  property  owners  must  be  compensated  for  the  additional  bur- 
den upon  the  fee  caused  by  the  location  of  the  telephone  and  electric  poles 
within  streets  and  alleys.  Burns  v.  La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.  et  ai,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  195,  197-198. 

VALUATION. 
See  Valuation. 

ELECTROLYSIS. 

Prevention  of  electrolysis,  cost  of  prevention,  as  element  considered  in 
making  rates  for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  33. 

ELECTROMAGNETIC  INDUCTION. 

Telephone  line  disturbance  due  to  electromagnetic  induction,  see  Tele- 
phone Utilities,  45. 

ELECTROSTATIC  INDUCTION. 

Telephone  line  disturbance  due  to  electrostatic  induction,  see  Telephone 
Utilities,  45. 

ELEVATORS. 

See  Warehouses. 

EMERGENCY  OR  "STANDBY"  SERVICE. 

Rates  for  emergency  or  "standby"  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  9; 
Rates — Water,  3. 

EMERGENCY  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  48. 

EMINENT  DOMAIN. 

COMPENSATION. 

Necessity  for  and  right  to  compensation. 

1.  The  law  is  well  settled  that  when  private  property  is  appropriated 
by  a  municipality  for  public  purposes  such  compensation  must  be  actually 
made  or  the  means  provided  whereby  it  can  be  certainly  obtained.   {Brock 


Equipment  Rental  107 


et  al.  V.  Hishen  et  al,  1876,  40  Wis.  674;  Smeaion  et  al.  v.  Martin  et  al,  1883, 
57  Wis.  364;  State  v.  Hague,  1888,  71  Wis.  384;  State  ex  rel.  Burbank  v. 
Superior,  1892,  81  Wis.  649;  State  ex  rel.  Andrews  v.  Oshkosh,  1893,  84  Wis. 
548.)   In  re  Racine  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  543,  550. 

What  constitutes  just  compensation. 

2.  The  constitutional  phrase  just  compensation  has  been  generally 
defined  as  including  not  only  the  value  of  that  portion  of  a  property  which 
is  actually  appropriated  to  the  public  purpose,  but  also  any  diminution  in 
value  that  the  remainder  of  such  property  may  suffer  because  of  the  sever- 
ance of  such  portion.     In  re  Cashton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  67,  80. 

NATURE,  EXTENT  AND  DELEGATION  OF  POWER. 

Exercise  of  delegated  power. 

3.  We  apprehend  that  there  is  little  difference  in  principle  between 
the  actual  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain  and  the  agreement  to 
exercise  it  in  case  the  right  of  way  cannot  be  secured  voluntarily  from  the 
owners  by  purchase.  Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.  Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.,  1907, 
1  R.  G.  739,  760;  Meyer  v.  Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  178,  188. 


EMPTIES. 

Express  containers,  return  of  empty  containers,  reasonableness  of  charges, 
see  Rates — Express,  16. 


EMPTY  CAR  MILEAGE. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
126-127. 

ENGINEERING. 

Gost  of  engineering  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see 
Valuation,  85-86. 

EQUIPMENT. 

Equipment  of  street  railway,  allowance  for  cost  of  maintenance  of,  see 
Maintenance  of  Equipment,  1. 


EQUIPMENT  RENTAL. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  electric  rates,  see 

Rates — Electric,  72. 
Municipal  equipment  rental,  apportionment  of,  in  the  determination  of 

unit  costs  for  electric  utiUties,  see  Accounting,  23. 


108  Equipment  Rental 


Telephone  utilities,  rental  for  equipment,  discrimination  due  to  granting 

rebates  for  repairs  and  equipment  rentals,  see  Discrimination,  94. 

rental  paid  to  subscribers  on  account  of  ownership  of  instruin,ents  or 

facilities,  see  Discrimination,  91. 
rental  for  equipment,  paid  by  utility  to  subscriber,  reasonable  rental 
permitted,  see  Rates — Telephone,  14. 
What  constitutes  a  reasonable  rental  for  equipment  owned  by  consumers, 
see  Rates — Electric,  52;  Rates — Gas,  10. 

ESTOPPEL. 

Estoppel  against  public,  government,  or  public  officers. 

1.  The  equitable  doctrine  of  estoppel,  by  which  a  party  is  precluded 
from  denying  that  which  his  words,  actions,  or  mere  silence  have  caused 
another  person  to  believe,  when  a  denial  would  cause  injury  to  that  per- 
son, re  not  applied  to  municipal  corporations  with  the  same  strictness  as 
to  individuals.  While  cities  are  sometimes  held  to  be  estopped  by  their 
acts,  as  to  matters  not  clearly  beyond  their  powers,  this  is  true  only  in 
very  strong  cases.  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  EL  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca, 
1912,  8  R.  G.  586,  674. 

EVIDENCE. 

Substantial  evidence  in  arriving  at  decision,  see  Railroad  Gommission,  30. 

Rules  of  evidence. 

1.  The  Gommission  upon  assuming  jurisdiction  of  the  case  thoroughly 
investigated  all  matters  which  might  have  any  bearing  on  the  equities  in- 
volved in  the  case.  It  did  not  deem  itself  confined  to  the  rules  of  evidence 
applicable  to  the  trial  of  causes  in  courts,  but  assumed  that  its  investigation 
should  be  made  along  the  lines  customarily  pursued  in  cases  brought 
before  the  Gommission  in  the  manner  provided  by  statute.  In  re  Jt. 
Appl.  Waupaca  EI.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  9  R.  G.  310,  312-313. 

EXCELSIOR. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  excelsior,  see  Rates — Railroad,  233. 

EXCESS  LOADING. 

Extra  charge  for. 

1.  Gharge  for  excess  loading  when  used  as  a  measure  of  safety 
to  induce  shippers  not  to  overload,  is  not  unreasonable.  Brown 
Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  569. 

EXCESS  RADIUS  CHARGE. 

Excess  radius  charge  for  telephones,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  15. 


Express  Companies  109 


EXCHANGE  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  exchange  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs 
for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,   53. 


EXCHANGE  RADIUS. 

Exchange  radius  for  telephone  utility,  determination  of,  see  Rates — 
Telephone,   16. 

EXCURSION  TRAINS. 

^  See  Train  Service,  17,  29. 

EXORBITANT  RATES. 

See  Rates: 

EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  in  determination  of  unit  costs,  see  Account- 
ing, 6-30,  34-57,  62-86,  88-118,  127-135,  137-146,  150-169, 
174-183. 

Legal  expenses  incurred  in  proceedings  before  the  Commission  and  in 
courts,  see  Legal  Expenses,  1-2. 

EXPRESS  COMPANIES. 

Charges,  refund  from  excess  charges,  see  Reparation,  152-153. 

Classification  in  express  service,  see  Classification,  5. 

Delivery,  place  of  delivery  and  necessity  of  making  personal  delivery,  see 

Delivery  at  Destination,  4. 
Delivery  service,  a  part  of  the  service  covered  by  the  rate,  see  Delivery 

Service,  1. 
Delivery  service  limits,  express  delivery  limits  must  be  coextensive  with 

boundaries  of  municipality,  see  Delivery  Service  Limits,  1-2. 
Delivery  service  limits,  must  not  be  arbitrary,  see  Delivery  Service 

LixMITS,  3. 

Discrimination  as  between  customers  of  express  companies,  see  Discrim- 
ination, 47. 

Fare  zones,  establishment  of,  by  express  companies,  see  Fare  Zones,  1. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  the  receipt  and  delivery  of  interstate 
shipments  of  goods  by  express  carriers.  Commission  without  juris- 
diction subsequent  to  federal  enactment  on  subject,  see  Railroad 
Commission,  57. 

Rules  and  regulations  of  express  companies,  see  Rules  and  Regula- 
tions, 3.  ' 


110    Express  Companies. — Control  and  regulation  in  general 


CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  IN  GENERAL. 

Express  companies  engaged  in  interstate  commerce. 

1.  Since  the  decisions  in  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  James,  1896, 
162  U.  S.  650,  and  United  States  Express  Co.  v.  State,  1905,  164  Ind.  196, 
were  rendered,  congress  has  brought  all  express  companies  engaged  in 
interstate  commerce  within  the  terms  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act, 
34  Stat,  at  L.  584  (June  29,  1906).  Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et 
al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  574. 

OPERATION. 

REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. 

Delivery  service  limits. 

2.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  express  companies  to  make  personal  delivery. 
Arbitrary  delivery  limits  within  municipalities  cannot  be  established 
without  subjecting  those  residing  within  the  boundaries  of  the  munici- 
pality, but  outside  of  such  limits,  to  an  unjust  disadvantage  or  prejudice. 
The  only  territorial  Umits  of  the  service,  that  may  reasonably  be  adopted, 
are  the  natural  and  established  boundaries  of  the  municipality.  Strauss  v. 
American  Express  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  575. 

3.  Chapter  416,  laws  1911,  (sec.  1798m)  makes  the  delivery  service 
limits  of  express  companies  co-extensive  with  those  of  the  U.  S.  mail  in 
cities  having  free  mail  dehvery.  In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C. 
1,  10,  43;  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Exp.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  594, 
596. 

ROUTING  OF  SHIPMENTS. 

Circuitous  routing. 

4.  Circuitous  routing  of  shipments  resulting  in  material  delay  in  the 
final  deUvery  of  the  shipments  is  entirely  indefensible  and  must  be  dis- 
continued.   In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C.  1,  43. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — Express. 

EXPRESS  RATES. 

See  Rates — ^Express. 

EXPRESS  TRAIN. 

See  Train  Service. 

EXTENSION  BELLS. 

Extension  bells  for  telephone  utiHties,  rates  for,  see  Rates — ^Telephone, 
17. 


Farm  Wagons  111 


EXTENSION  TELEPHONES. 

Rates  for  extension  telephones,  see  Rates — Telephone,  18. 

EXTENSIONS. 

Extension  of  street  railways,  see  Street  Railways,  16-17. 
of  telephone  lines,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  8-25. 
of  water  mains,  see  Water  Utilities,  3-12. 

of  water  mains,  adjustment  of  rates  on  extension  of  mains,  see  Rates 
—Water,  11-12. 

EXTRA  LISTING. 

Charge  for  extra  listing  in  telephone  directory,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  20. 

FACILITIES  FOR  INTERCHANGE  OF  TRAFFIC. 

See  Connecting  Carriers. 

FARE  COLLECTORS. 

Fare  collectors  to  improve  service  of  street  railways,  see   Street  Rail- 
ways, 37. 

FARE  LIMITS. 

Extension  of  fare  limits  for  street  railways,    see  Rates — Street  Rail- 
way, 6. 

FARE  ZONES. 

Fare  zones  for  interurban  railways,  see  Interurban  Railways,  11. 
Zone  rates  for  street  railways,  see  Rates — Street  Railway,  24-26. 

Establishment  of  fare  zones  by  express  companies. 

1.  If  conditions  are  such  that  express  companies  cannot  serve  all 
at  the  same  rates  because  of  differences  in  the  cost  of  the  service  to  those 
residing  in  sparsely  settled  sections  of  the  municipality,  or  for  other  reasons, 
they  may  lawfully  establish  zones  and  graduate  their  charges  accordingly. 
Such  zones  must,  of  course.  Be  established  upon  a  reasonable  basis.  Strauss 
V.  American  Express  Co.  ei  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  570. 

FARM  TRUCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  farm  trucks,  see  Rates — Railroad,  234. 

FARM  WAGONS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  farm  wagons,  see  Rates — Railroad,  234. 


112  Feed  Cookers 


FEED  COOKERS. 

Classification  under  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad,  200. 
Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

FENCE  POSTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  fence  posts,  see  Rates — Railroad,  272. 

FILING  OF  RATES. 

Duty  of  shipper  to  ascertain  that  rates  are  filed  in  advance  of  shipments 
to  be  made  under  the  same,  see  Railroads,  66-67. 

Necessity  of  filing  railroad  rates  with  the  Railroad  Commission,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  2. 

FILING  OF  SCHEDULES. 

See  Schedules  for  Utilities;  Schedules  or  Tariffs. 

FINANCIAL  CONDITION. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  street  railways,  see  Rates — 
Street  Railways,  9. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  186.  ■ 

of  telephone  rates,  see  Rates — Telephone,  54. 

As  matter  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  27. 

Duty  of  common  carriers  to  perform  a  certain  minimum  of  service  regard- 
less of  financial  conditions,  see  Railroads,  85-90. 

FINANCIAL  MANAGEMENT. 

Financial  transactions  in  the  management  of  electric  utility,  see  Electric 
Utilities,  24-26. 
of  water  utilities,  see  Water  Utilities,  20-22. 

FINANCING. 

Methods  of  financing  water  utility  as  element  considered  in  making  rates, 
see  Rates — Water,  54. 

FIRE  PROTECTION. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  between  fire  and  general  service  in  the  deter- 
mination of  unit  costs  for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  176. 

Apportionment  of  value  of  property  between  fire  and  general  service,  in 
the  determination  of  unit  costs  for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting, 
184. 


Flat  Cars  113 


Necessity  of  making  a  charge  for  fire  protection,  see  Rates — Water,  8. 
Order  of  Commission  requiring  the  maintenance  of  adequate  fire  pressure, 
see  Water  Utilities,  43-44. 

FIRE  PROTECTION  RATES. 

Fire  protection  rates  for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  4-14. 

FISH  BOXES. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  fish  boxes,  see  Rates — Railroad,  236. 

FISHWAYS. 

Necessity  of  providing  fish^vays  at  water  power  dams. 

1.  It  appears  from  the  testimony  that  there  are  at  present  no  fishways 
or  logways  at  the  McClure  dam.  Fishways,  however,  are  a  necessity  and 
the  petitioner  must  construct  proper  chutes  or  slides  for  the  passage  of 
fish  past  its  dam.  In  re  Appls.  for  W.  P.  Franchise  on  Apple  River,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  712,  722. 

FIXED  CHARGES. 

Elimination  of  fixed  charges  as  element  in  making  rates  for  municipal 
utilities,  discrimination  in  favor  of  consumers  as  against  taxpayers, 
see  Discrimination,  45. 

FIXED  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  fixed  or  capacity  expenses,  see  Accounting,  8,  44,  63, 
174-175. 

FIXTURES. 

Discrimination  due  to  practice  of  furnishing  electric  fixtures,  etc.,  at  or 
below  cost  in  order  to  secure  consumers,  see  Discrimination,  18. 

FLAGMAN. 

Flagman  for  protection  of  railroad,  crossing,  see  Railroads,  27;  Street 
Railways,  14. 

FLAG  STATION. 

See  Station  Facilities,  15. 

FLAT  CARS. 

Substitution  of  box  cars  for  flat  cars  for  shipments  of  tanbark.  Albert 
Tro$td  (fc  Sons  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  761. 


114  '  Flat  Rates 


FLAT  RATES. 

Discrimination  due  to  flat  rates,  see  Discrimination,  16-17,  43. 
*  Excess  indicator  rates  for  electric  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  14. 
Flat  rates  for  electric  utility,  see  Rates — Electric,  10-14. 

for  gas  utility,  see  Rates — Gas,  1.  * 

for  water  utility,  see  Rates — Water,  15-22. 
Optional  charge  of  flat  rate  or  toll  charge,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  77. 

FLATIRONS. 

Use  of  electric  flatirons  prohibited  under  certain  conditions,  see  Electric 
Utilities,  45. 

FLOOD  GATES. 

Flood  gates  in  water  power  dams  to  control  level  and  flow  of  water,  see 
Navigable  Waters,  3. 

FLOUR. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  flour,  see  Rates — Railroad,  237. 

FLOWAGE  RIGHTS. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  87. 

Prescriptive  flowage  rights. 

1.  In  absence  of  proof  of  prescriptive  rights,  lands  not  burdened 
with  flowage  rights  are  entitled  to  protection  against  flooding.  In  re 
Regulation  Level  of  Water  on  Long  Lake,  1915,  15  R.  G.  708. 

FLOW  OF  WATER. 

Regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  navigable  waters,  see  Navigable  Waters, 
2-8. 

FOREST  PRODUCTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs  and  similar  forest  products,  see  Rates — ■ 
Railroad,  207,  238,  256,  257,  269-272,  298-302. 

Trainload  rates  for  forest  products,  petition  for,  dismissed,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  322.  \ 

Trainload  service  for  forest  products,  petition  for,  dismissed,  see  Train 
Service,  11. 

FORMULA. 

Formula  for  computing  radiation,  see  Rates — Heating,  1, 


Franchises  115 


FOUNDRY  PATTERNS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  foundry  patterns,  see  Rates — Railroad,  239. 

FOUNTAIN  RATES. 

Public  fountain  rates  for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  23. 

FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT. 

Property  rights  under  14th  amendment,  extent  of  duty  of  railway  company 
to  operate  at  pecuniary  loss,  see  Street  Railways,  20. 

FRANCHISES. 

See  also  Indeterminate  Permit. 

Acquisition  of  franchises  or  privileges  by  street  railway  company,  see 

Street  Railways,  11. 
By  acceptance  of  indeterminate  permit,  a  utility  waives  the  right  to  have 

established  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury  the  necessity  of  the  taking 

over  of  its  property  by  the  municipality,  see  Electric  Utilities, 

12. 
Duty  of  street  railway  to  furnish  adequate  service  so  long  as  it  assumes  to 

operate  under  permissive  franchise,  see  Street  Railways,  5. 
Franchises  so  far  as  they  are  ambiguous  are  to  be  strictly  construed 

against  the  grantee  and  in  favor  of  the  public,  see  Railroad 

Commission,  146. 
Franchise  value  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valua- 
tion, 28-36. 
Power  of  Commission  to  vary  a  rate  fixed  by  a  special  franchise  granted 

by  a  municipality  to  a  street  railway  company,  see  Railroad 

Commission,  132. 
Telephone  utilities,  authority  to  operate  a  telephone  utility  derived  from 

the  state  and  not  the  municipality,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  26. 
Usurpation  of  franchise  or  exercise  of  unauthorized  powers  by  a  railroad 

company,  see  Railroads,  103-104. 
by  a  telephone  company,  a  grievance  against  sovereignty,  see  Tele- 
phone Utilities,  65. 
Voluntary  surrender  of  franchise,  see  Electric  Utilities,  12. 

Nature  of  franchise  rights. 

1.  The  Railroad  Commission  is  without  authority  to  annul  a  public 
utility  franchise.  Chilton  v.  Wis.  El.  Service  Co.  et  a/.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
326,  331. 

2.  The  right  granted  is  the  property  of  the  grantee  and  is  capable  of 
being  mortgaged  and  sold.  Even  the  dissolution  of  the  corporation 
would  not  forfeit  the  franchise,  as  it  is  a  property  right  of  which  its 
owners  cannot  be  involuntarily  deprived.  {People  v.  O'Brien,  111  N.  Y. 
2;  2  L.  R.  A.  255;  Chapman  Valve  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Oconto  Water  Co.,  89  Wis. 
264,  275.)     In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Cashton,  1908,  2  R.  C.  677,  688. 


116  Franchises 


3.  We  are  clearly  of  the  opinion  and  hold  that  the  contract  relating 
to  the  pumping  of  water  and  furnishing  of  street  lighting  did  not  confer 
upon  the  milling  company  any  franchise,  license  or  permit  to  use  the  streets, 
alleys  and  public  grounds  of  the  village  for  the  purposes  of  a  commercial 
electric  lighting  plant  or  water  works,  and  that  no  authority  was  thereby 
granted  to  the  milling  company  to  engage  in  the  business  of  a  public 
utility,  either  in  furnishing  electric  light  and  power  or  water  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  village.  It  therefore  follows  that  the  notice  of  sur- 
render of  its  franchises  by  the  Gashton  Electric  Light  and  Power  Company 
was  ineffective  as  a  means  of  acquiring  an  indeterminate  permit,  at  least 
as  far  as  the  same  pertains  to  the  contract  in  question.  In  re  AppL 
Village  of  Cashton,  1908,  2  R.  G.  677,  685. 

4.  Special  franchises  of  public  service  corporations,  on  the  one  hand, 
are  covenants  on  the  part  of  the  public  that  the  grantee  may  occupy 
certain  public  grounds  and  thoroughfares  for  the  purposes  of  the  public 
service  undertaken,  and  that  such  service  may  be  rendered  upon  certain 
conditions  within  a  specified  territory;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  are  gen- 
erally covenants  on  the  part  of  the  grantee  to  perform  the  specific  service 
undertaken  in  a.  proper  manner  and  to  charge  therefor  no  more  than  a 
reasonable  compensation.  City  of  Applefon  v.  Appleton  Water  Works  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  215,  284. 

Nature  of  franchise  rights — Distinction  between  franchises 
granted  to  telephone  and  telegraph  companies  and  fran- 
chises granted  to  electric,  gas,  heating  and  water  utilities. 

5.  An  examination  of  the  statutes  discloses  that  there  is  no  analogy 
between  the  franchises  of  telegraph  and  telephone  companies  emanating 
directly  from  the  state,  and  authorizing  such  companies  to  construct 
and  operate  their  lines  along,  upon  and  across  highways,  streets  and 
public  grounds,  and  the  franchises  of  companies  organized  for  the  purpose 
of  supplying  municipalities  and  the  inhabitants  thereof  with  electric 
light,  heat  and  power.  As  a  condition  precedent  to  the  exercise  of  the 
privileges  conferred  by  a  franchise  proceeding  directly  from  the  state  to  a 
gas,  water  or  electrical  company  in  this  state,  a  local  license,  privilege  or 
franchise  is  essential.  (Sees.  1780,  1780a,  17806.)  (Ashland  v.  Wheeler, 
88  Wis.  607.)     In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Cashton,  1908,  2  R.  C.  677,  685-686. 

Nature  of  indeterminate  permit. 

6.  Under  the  Public  Utilities  Law  a  municipality  can  only  terminate 
a  franchise  or  indeterminate  permit  by  determining  to  acquire  the  plant  of 
the  public  utility  and  paying  just  compensation  for  the  property  as  a 
going  concern.  It  is  not  possible  for  the  city  to  acquire  the  business  of 
the  respondent  without  purchasing  all  of  the  property  used  and  useful  for 
the  convenience  of  the  public  involved.  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H. 
&  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  626,  631. 

Franchise  subject  to  amendment  or  repeal  by  legislature. 

7.  There  is  no  provision  in  the  statutes  delegating  to  the  common 
council  of  the  city  the  power  to  alter  or  repeal  the  grant  of  a  franchise, 
though,  through  the  exercise  by  the  legislature  of  the  reserve  power  in 


Franchises  117 


sec.  1,  art.  XI,  of  the  Constitution,  it  might  alter  or  repeal  it  at  will. 
(CiW  of  Ashland  v.  Wheeler,  1894,  88  Wis.  607,  616.)  City  of  Ashland  v. 
Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  302;  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton 
W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  215,  283;  City  of  Watertown  v.  Watertown  G. 

6  EL  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  604,  605. 

8.  Under  the  Constitution  and  the  Public  Utilities  Law  a  franchise 
granted  by  a  city  is  not  a  contract  which  binds  such  city  to  the  terms  of 
that  franchise  for  all  time  to  come  and  which  forever  prevents  a  central 
state  commission  from  making  an  order  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  such 
franchise.  City  of  Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C. 
74,  95. 

9.  Objection  was  made  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  on  the 
ground  that  the  franchise  granted  the  respondent  was  a  contract  and  not 
merely  a  permit.  This  objection  was  overruled  and  the  Commission 
assumed   jurisdiction.     City   of  Janesville   v.   Janesville    W.    Co.,    1911, 

7  R.  C.  628,  631;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C. 
1,  12;  Cusick  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  314,  335. 

Franchise    values^ — Appraisal    for    taxation    and    for    rate-making 
purposes. 

10.  The  fact  that  the  earnings  of  a  utility  may  be  high  enough  to 
yield  a  surplus  that  may  be  made  the  basis  for  franchise  value  and  be  a 
proper  subject  for  taxation,  by  no  means  implies  that  these  earnings,  or 
the  value  based  thereon,  should  also  be  the  basis  for  rate  making.  Hill 
et  al.  V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  727-728;  City  of  Appleton  u. 
Appleton  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  282. 

Monopolistic  nature  of  exclusive  rights  to  operate  public  utilities. 

11.  Exclusive  rights  to  perform  the  services  that  are  rendered  by 
public  utilities  are  monopolistic  in  their  nature,  due  to  natural  conditions, 
and  they  belong  to  the  community.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  586. 

Reservation  of  exclusive  franchise  values  for  the  public. 

12.  The  value  of  exclusive  franchise  privileges  has  been  created  by 
the  growth  of  population,  and  by  economic  and  social  developments 
generally,  rather  than  by  any  individual  efforts.  Belonging  to  the 
public,  the  right  to  control  and  of  the  disposal  of  such  privileges  also 
rests  in  the  community.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  & 
El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  586. 

Right  to  occupy  streets  for  interurban  railway  service. 

13.  The  right  of  the  respondents  to  operate  interurban  cars  upon  the 
streets  of  Waukesha  is  a  judicial  question  and  not  within  the  power  of 
the  Commission  to  determine,  but  so  long  as  the  respondents  continue  to 
render  such  service,  it  is  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  and  regulation  of  the 
Commission.  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  89,  90,  97. 


118  Franchises 


Right  to  occupy  streets  for  Interurban  railway  service — Addi- 
tional servitude  upon  highway. 

14.  Respondent's  franchise  authorized  the  use  of  the  two  routes  for 
both  urban  and  interurban  service.  As  interurban  service  would  impose 
an  additional  servitude  upon  the  highway,  such  franchises  only  gave  the 
right  to  occupy  streets  for  interurban  railway  purposes  as  against  the 
public,  and  it  was  necessary  to  acquire  the  consent  of  the  abutting  property 
owners  by  mutual  agreement,  or  secure  the  right  through  condemnation 
proceedings.  City  of  Janesville  v.  Rockford  &  Interurban  Ry.  Co.,  1912, 
9  R,  C.  502,  507-508. 

Telephone  franchises. 

15.  It  has  been  determined  that  a  municipality  has  no  power  to 
grant  a  franchise  to  a  telephone  company.  An  ordinance  attempting  to 
grant  such  a  franchise  is  ineffectual  and  void.  {State  v.  Milw.  Independent 
Tel.  Co.,  114  N.  W.  108;  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Milw.,  126  Wis.  1;  State  u.  Tel 
Co.,  Ill  Wis.  23.)  In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
521,  542. 

FREE  HOUSE  PIPING. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  88. 

FREE  LAMP  RENEWALS. 

Cost  of  free  lamp  renewals  as  element  considered  in  making  electric  rates, 

see  Rates — Electric,  29. 
Lamps  to  be  renewed  free  by  electric  utility,  see  Rates — ^Electric,  18. 

FREE  OR  REDUCED  RATE  SERVICE. 

Discrimination  due  to  free  or  reduced  rate  service,  see  Discrimination,  13, 
14,  18,  19,  21,  23,  32,  36,  89-91. 

Extension  of  telephone  line  to  afford  free  telephone  communication  be- 
tween New  Richmond  and  the  vicinity  thereof.  In  re  Exten.  St. 
Croix  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  241. 

Free  or  reduced  rate  service  for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  24. 
prohibited  by  law,  see  Rates — Telephone,  25. 
definition  of,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  22. 

Free  toll  service  is  permissible  when  furnished  without  unjust  discrimina- 
tion, see  Rates — ^Telephone,  28. 

Free  transportation  of  a  car  advertising  lands  in  general  does  not  include 
transportation  of  persons  in  charge  of  the  car  when  such  persons 
are  not  employed  by  the  railroad  company,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 51. 

Investigation  on  motion  of  the  Commission  of  free  and  reduced  rate  tele- 
phone service  in  Wis.,  see  Rates — Telephone,  23. 

Railroad  company  ordered  to  establish  reasonable  charges  for  carrying 
passengers,  see  Rates — Railroad,  50. 


Fruit  119 


FREE  SERVICE  LIMITS. 

Express  companies,  pick-up  and  delivery  service,  free  service  limits,  see 
Express  Companies,  2-3. 

FREE  STORAGE  PERIOD. 

Additional  free  storage  time  allowed  patrons  in  proportion  to  distance 

from  station,  see  Station  Facilities,  16. 
Extension  of  free  storage  time,  see  Demurrage  Rules,  1-7. 

FREIGHT. 

Delivery  at  destination,  see  Delivery  at  Destination,  1-6. 

Carriage  of  freight  by  electric  railway. 

1.  Electric  railway  not  authorized  to  carry  freight  unless  franchise 
specifically  provides  for  such  service.  Wis.  Veterans'  Home  v.  Waupaca 
El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  656. 

FREIGHT  ACCOMMODATIONS. 

See  Station  Facilities. 

FREIGHT  CARS. 

"Spotting"  of  freight  cars  on  public  street,  see  Switch  Connections,  24. 

FREIGHT  FACILITIES. 

See  Train  Service. 

Electric  railway  not  serving  as  a  common  carrier  of  freight  for  hire,  see 
Street  Railways,  31. 

FREIGHT  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad. 

FREIGHT  SERVICE. 

See  Train  Service;  Station  Facilities. 

FREIGHT  TRAFFIC. 

Relation  between  freight  and  passenger  traffic  as  element  considered  in 
making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  148. 

FRUIT. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  fruit,  see  Rates — Railroad,  240. 


120  Fuel  Oil 


FUEL  OIL. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  fuel  oil,  see  Rates — Railroad,  260. 

FUEL  WOOD. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  fuel  wood,  see  Rates — Railroad,  299. 

FUTURE  VALUE. 

Commission  without  authority  to  consider  possible  future  value  of  prop- 
erty of  public  utilities  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates.  In  re 
Appl.  Portage  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  692,  693. 

GAINS  DUE  TO  CHANCE. 

Gains  due  to  chance,  as  element  in  profits,  see  Return,  38. 

GAINS  OF  BARGAINING. 

Gains  of  bargaining  as  element  in  profits,  see  Return,  39. 

GALVANIZED  IRON  TANKS. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

GAS  RATES. 

See  Rates — Gas. 

GAS  UTILITIES. 

Cost  of  service  of  gas  utilities,  determination  of  unit  costs,  see  Account- 
ing, 39-62. 

Depreciation,  rate  of  depreciation  of  gas  plant,  see  Depreciation,  35-36. 

Discrimination  as  between  consumers  of  gas  utility,  see  Discrimination, 
28-29. 

Minimum  charges  for  gas  utilities,  see  Minimum  Charges,  9-13. 

ACCOUNTING. 
See  Accounting,  39-62. 


I.     OPERATION. 

a.   Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities,     b.   Standards  of  service. 


Gas  Utilities. — Operation    121 

I.    OPERATION. 

a.    REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. 

In  general. 

1.  Under  sec.  1797m-3  (ch.  499,  laws  of  1907),  "Every  public  utility 
is  required  to  furnish  reasonably  adequate  service  and  facilities."  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <&  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  623. 

Adequacy  of  service — In  general. 

2.  The  matter  of  adequacy  of  gas  service  was  passed  upon  in  the 
following  cases:  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.y 
1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripoti  Lt.  iSc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1; 
Vill.  of  Sharon  v.  United  Heat,  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  1;  Madison 
Gas  cfc  El.  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  409,  416;  In  re  Service 
and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350. 

— —     Definition  of  adequacy. 

3.  Adequate  service  is  not  necessarily  the  best  service  which  it  is 
possible  to  give,  but  rather  the  best  service  which  can  be  given  with  due 
regard  to  economy  to  the  consumer  and  to  the  company.  The  kind  of 
service  prescribed  should  not  be  materially  different  from  that  furnished 
by  companies  operated  under  the  best  management  and  giving  the  best 
service.     In  re  Standards  for  Gas  S:  El.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  G.  632,  642-643. 

Appliances  for  the  measurement  of  product  or  service — Duty  of 
utility  to  provide  meters. 

4.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  utility  to  furnish  meters  unless  exempted  from 
so  doing  by  the  Gommission.  Lothrop  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G. 
479;  In  re  Invest.  Hudson  W.  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  138,  142.' 

Duty  of  utility  to  provide  special  kind  of  meters. 

5.  Rule  7  of  the  Gommission's  Rules  and  Standards  for  Service  re- 
quires the  use  of  meters  reading  directly  in  cubic  feet.  Respondent's 
meters  read  in  terms  of  dollars  and  cents,  and  an  exemption  from  this  rule 
was  granted  the  company  pending  the  decision  of  this  case.  The  ex- 
emption from  this  rule  is  hereby  made  permanent  so  long  as  respondent' 
continues  the  present  process  of  manufacture.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt. 
<Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  88. 

Right  of  utility  to  control  meters. 

6.  Along  with  the  legal  responsibility  must  necessarily  be  conceded 
to  the  company  sole  control — for  it  would  plainly  be  as  unjust  as  it  would 
be  absurd  to  impose  such  a  responsibility  and  withhold  the  right  of  pro- 
tecting itself  from  loss  caused  by  interference  on  the  part  of  others. 
{Blondell  v.  Consolidated  Gas  Co.,  1899,  89^Md.  732.)  In  re  Invest.  Hudson 
W.  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  138,  143. 

Refusal  of  service  for  nonpayment  of  bills  rendered. 

7.  A  public  utility  may  refuse  to  furnish  service  unless  the  charges 
for  such  service  are  prepaid,  or  a  sum  of  money  sufficient  to  secure  the 


122 Gas  Utilities. — Operation 

payment  for  services  rendered  during  any  future  interval  for  which  credit 
is  extended,  or  a  bond  to  secure  such  payment  is  deposited  with  the  utiUty, 
but  the  utiUty  may  not  condition  the  furnishing  of  service  upon  the 
Uquidation  of  indebtedness  to  the  utihty  for  past  service.  In  re  Refusal 
of  Service  by  Madison  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  518. 

b.    STANDARDS   OF  SERVICE. 

Standards  established  by  Commission, 

8.  Both  the  direct  mandates  of  the  statutes  and  the  variations  in 
standards  of  service  actually  in  existence  in  the  state  of  Wisconsin  make 
it  imperative  for  this  Commission  to  prescribe  uniform  standards  of  service 
for  public  utihties.  The  present  order  is  confined  to  gas  and  electric 
service.  The  preliminary  investigations,  conferences  and  other  work 
preceding  the  adoption  of  these  standards  are  discussed  and  a  series  of 
rules  prescribed  for  the  guidance  of  the  management  of  gas  and  electric 
companies.  While  these  rules  apply  to  every  gas  and  electric  plant  in  the 
state,  on  application  to  the  Commission  and  for  sufficient  cause  shown, 
such  modifications,  exemptions  and  concessions  may  be  made  with  refer- 
ence to  these  rules  as  the  facts  in  each  case  shall  warrant.  Without  an 
express  order  of  the  Commission  authorizing  it,  every  departure  from 
these  rules  will  be  regarded  as  a  violation  of  the  law.  In  re  Standards  for 
Gas  and  El.  Service,  *908,  2  R.  C.  632,  662. 

9.  Under  authority  of  sec.  1797m-23  of  the  Wis.  Statutes,  the  Com- 
mission herein  issued  an  order  superseding  the  original  order  relating  to 
standards  for  gas  and  electric  service  (2  R.  C.  632).  The  present  order 
has  been  made  after  extensive  investigation  and  collection  of  data. 
In  re  Standards  for  Gas  and  El.  Service,  1913,  12  R.  C.  418,  432. 

Gasoline  gas  plants. 

10.  The  Commission  has  established  standards  for  gas  and  electric 
service  in  Wisconsin  but  it  has  not  been  considered  practicable  to  establish 
such  standards  for  gasoline  gas  plants.  Vill.  of  Sharon  v.  United  Heat,  Lt. 
Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  1,  5. 

Oil  gas. 

11.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  standard  for  heating  value  was  estab- 
lished with  special  reference  to  the  production  of  water  and  coal  gas,  sep- 
arate provision  must  be  made  for  plants  producing  oil  gas,  and  compliance 
with  such  standard  must  be  insisted  upon.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc 
W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  54. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — Gas. 


VALUATION. 
See  Valuation. 


Going  Value  123 


GASOLINE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  gasoline,  see  Rates — Railroad,  268. 

GASOLINE  ENGINE  TRUCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  gasoline  engine  trucks,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

GATES. 

Flood  gates  in  water  power  dams  to  control  level  and  flow  of  water,  see 

Navigable  Waters,  3. 
Gates  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see  Interurban  RaiIlways,  2; 

Railroads,  28. 

GENERAL  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  general  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for 
electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  19. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  41. 
for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  65. 
for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  70. 
for  joint  utilities,  see  Accounting,  101-107. 

GENERATING  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  generating  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs 
for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  25. 

GIFTS. 

Property  acquired  by  public  utilities  through  gift,  as  element  in  valuation, 
see  Valuation,  109. 

GOING  CONCERN. 

As  element  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 
38-41. 

GOING  VALUE. 

As  element  considered  in  determining  just  compensation  for  property  in 
case  of  municipal  acquisition  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  42. 

As  element  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 
43-55. 

Method  of  appraising  going  value,  see  Valuation,  130-140. 


124 Going  Value. — Nature  of  property 


NATURE  OF  PROPERTY. 

In  general. 

1.  If  property  is  devoted  to  the  public  use,  and  reasonable  care  has 
been  exercised  in  all  the  phases  of  its  management,  but  the  owners  have 
not  received  a  fair  return  during  the  earlier  years  of  the  operation  of  the 
plant  in  which  the  property  is  used  for  the  convenience  of  the  public,  the 
deficit  thus  incurred  must  be  made  up  out  of  the  later  earnings,  insofar  as 
this  is  commercially  possible  and  expedient.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  61. 

Going  value  distinguished  from  good  will. 

2.  Some  confusion  seems  to  exist  in  petitioner's  brief  between  going 
value  and  good  will,  or,  in  other  words,  between  the  cost  of  building  up 
a  business  and  the  value  which  accrues  to  a  business  because  of  the 
patronage  given  to  it  by  customers  who  are  free  to  patronize  a  competing 
business.    City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236,  243. 

Going  value  distinguished  from  market  value. 

3.  In  calculating  going  value  the  cost  of  development  must  not  be 
confused  with  what  an  investor  would  be  willing  to  pay  in  the  market  above 
actual  physical  value  for  an  established  business.  In  the  present  instance 
going  value  is  determined  from  an  examination  of  income  accounts  found 
to  be  reliable  and  estimates  of  the  probable  cost  of  developing  the  business 
based  upon  different  rates  of  growth.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  G. 
Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  441,  459-463. 

Going  value  distinguished  from  the  value  of  a  going  concern. 

4.  In  the  testimony  going  value  was  defined  as  that  value  which  is 
added  to  the  physical  value  of  a  plant  by  virtue  of  the  successful  and 
harmonious  operation  of  the  whole,  and  the  coordination  of  the  various 
parts.  This  might,  with  propriety,  be  termed  a  definition  of  the  value  of 
a  going  concern  as  distinguished  from  going  value  or  the  uncompensated 
cost  incurred  in  building  up  the  business.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  60-61. 

GOOD  WILL. 

As  element  in  valuation  of  public  utilities,  good  will  applies  to  competitive 

enterprises  only,  see  Valuation,  56-58. 
Distinguished  from  going  value,  see  Going  Value,  2. 

NATURE  OF  PROPERTY. 

In  general. 

1.  Good  will  may  properly  enough  be  described  to  be  the  advantage 
or  benefit  which  is  acquired  by  an  establishment,  beyond  the  mere  value 
of  the  capital  stock,  funds,  or  property  employed  therein,  in  consequence 
of  the  general  public  patronage  and  encouragement  which  it  receives  from 
constant  or  habitual  customers  on  account  of  its  local  position  or  common 


Grindstones  125 


celebrity  or  reputation  for  skill,  affluence,  punctuality,  or  from  other  ac- 
cidental circumstances  or  necessities,  or  even  from  ancient  partialities  or 
prejudices.  (20  Cyc.  1275.)  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  67,  84. 

Applies  to  competitive  enterprises  only. 

2.  From  its  very  nature,  as  well  as  from  its  legal  doctrine,  it  is  quite 
clear  that  good  will  applies  to  competitive  enterprises  only.  Hill  et  al.  v. 
Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  720;  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908, 
3  R.  C.  67,  85;  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  60. 

GRADE  CROSSINGS. 

See  Interurban  Railways;  Railroads;  Street  Railways. 

GRAIN. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  grain,  see  Rates — Railroad,  80. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  grain,  see  Rates — Railroad,  241. 

GRAIN  ELEVATOR. 

See  Warehouses. 

GRAINS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
230. 

GRAINS  AND  SEEDS. 

Unreasonableness  of  double  minimum  on  mixed  carloads  of  grains  and 
seeds,  see  Weights,  12. 

GRANITE  BLOCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  granite  blocks,  see  Rates — Railroad,  242. 

GRAVEL. 

See  also  Sand  and  Gravel. 
.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  gravel,  see  Rates — Railroad,  243. 

GRINDSTONES. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroads, 
200. 


126  Ground  Limestone 


GROUND  LIMESTONE. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  ground  limestone,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

83. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  ground  limestone,  see  Rates — Railroad,  244. 

GROUND  WOOD  PULP. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  ground  wood  pulp,  see  Rates — Railroad,  274. 

GROUP  OR  BLANKET  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  52-61. 

HAND  AGRICULTURAL  IMPLEMENTS. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

HARDWARE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  hardware,  see  Rates — Railroad,  245. 

HARMONIC  RINGING  TELEPHONES. 

Rates  for  harmonic  ringing  telephones,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  30. 

HARROWS. 

Classification  under  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad,  200. 

HAUL. 

Length  of  haul  as  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  136-137. 

HAY. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  hay,  see  Rates — Railroad,  81. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  hay,  see  Rates — Railroad,  246. 

HEADLIGHTS. 

Locomotive  headhghts,  merits  of,  see  Railroads,  61. 

HEADWAY. 

Minimum  headway  for  street  railways,  see  Street  Railways,  39. 


Heating  Utilities, — Operation 127 

HEATING  APPARATUS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  heating  apparatus,  see  Rates — Railroad,  247. 

HEATING  APPLIANCES. 

Rates  for  electric  heating  appliances,  see  Rates — Electric,  5. 

HEATING  RATES. 

See  Rates — ^Heating. 

HEATING  AND  COOKING  RATES. 

Rates  for  electrical  heating  and  cooking,  see  Rates — Electric,  5 

HEATING  UTILITIES. 

Cost  of  service  of  heating  utility,  determination  of  unit  costs,  see  Account- 
ing, 63-68. 


I.     ESTABLISHMENT,   CONSTRUCTION  AND   MAINTENANCE. 

II.      OPERATION. 

a.   Distribution  of  consumption,      b.   Requirements   as   to   service   and 

facilities. 


I.  ESTABLISHMENT,   CONSTRUCTION  AND    MAINTENANCE. 

Method  of  installing  metered  system. 

1.  In  metering  steam  for  heating  purposes,  it  is  very  essential  that 
the  moisture  contained  in  the  steam  entering  the  building  should  be 
separated  from  the  steam  first,  as  it  is  naturally  of  little  use  for  heating 
purposes,  arid  it  is  manifestly  unfair  to  charge  the  consumer  with  con- 
densed steam  which  is  of  no  service  to  him.  This  can  be  easily  done  by 
inserting  a  trap  in  the  steam  pipe  and  returning  the  condensed  steam  to  the 
return  pipe  from  the  heating  system,  without  permitting  this  condensed 
steam  to  pass  through  the  meter.  With  such  an  arrangement  the  meter 
will  read  or  will  give  the  weight  of  steam  which  has  been  condensed  in 
the  building  and  is,  therefore,  a  true  measure  of  the  heat  which  has  been 
used  in  the  radiators.  In  re  Rates  of  Milwaukee  Central  Heating  Co.  et  at.. 
1908,  2  R.  C.  302,  306. 

II.  OPERATION. 

a.      DISTRIBUTION  OF  CONSUMPTION. 

Consumption  by  months. 

2.  It  has  been  approximated  that  the  consumption  of  steam  for 
heating  buildings  for  a  period  of  eight  ^months  may  be  divided,  taking 
100  per  cent  as  the  total  consumption,  as  follpws:     October,  63^  per  cent; 


128 Heating  Utilities. — Qperaiion 

November  11  ^  per  cent;  December  173^  per  cent;  January  20}/^  per  cent; 
February  19  per  cent;  March  13  per  cent;  April  83^  per  cent;  May  33^ 
per  cent.  In  re  Rates  of  Milwaukee  Central  Heating  Co.  et  al.,  1908 
2  R.  C.  302,  305. 

b.    REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. 

1 

Duty  of  utility  to  supply  appliances. 

3.  Sec.  1797/77-90  exempts  the  pubUc  utiUty  from  furnishing  any 
part  of  the  apphances  which  are  situated  in  and  upon  the  premises  of  any 
consumer  or  user  except  telephone  station  equipment  upon  the  subscriber's 
premises  and,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Commission,  meters  and 
appliances  for  the  measurement  of  any  product  or  service.  In  re  Invest. 
Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  468,  472. 

Thermostats. 


4.  The  company  reserves  the  right  to  furnish  and  install  all  thermo- 
stats connected  to  its  heating  system  at  or  at  as  near  cost  to  the  consumer 
as  they  can  be  installed  and  to  adjust  and  maintain  same  at  all  times, 
other  than  breakage  by  the  consumer  or  worn  out  parts,  which  supplies 
and  repairs  shall  be  made  by  the  company  at  cost  to  the  consumer. 
Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  468;  1914,  15  R.  C. 
121,  151. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — Heating. 

VALUATION. 
See  Valuation. 

HIGH  GRADE  FREIGHT. 

High  rate  for  carriage  of  high  grade  freight,  see  Rates — Railroad,  20. 

HIGH  VOLTAGE  TRANSMISSION  LINES. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission. 

1.  Railroad  Commission  without  authority  to  compel  a  change  in 
location  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines  when  they  interfere  with 
telephone  lines.  Ebenezer  Tel.  Co.  v.  M.  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C. 
619;  Platteville,  Rewey  &  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.  v.  Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  622. 

HIGH  WATER  MARK. 

Establishment   of  high  water   mark   on   dams  in   navigable  waters,  see 
Navigable  Waters,  4. 


Illuminated  Sign  129 


HIGHWAYS. 

Crossing  of  highways  by  interurban  railways,  see  Interurban  Railways, 

1-8. 
Crossing  of  highways  by  railroads,  see  Railroads,  3-55. 
Improvement  of  highway  approaches,  see  Railroads,  29. 
Relocation  of  highways  for  protection  or  elimination  of  railroad  crossing, 

see  Railroads,  39-44. 
Restoration  and  maintenance  of  highway,  see  Railroads,  45-51. 

''HOG  FUEL." 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  "hog  fuel"  or  mill  refuse,  see  Rates — Railroad 
248. 

HOMESEEKER'S  RATES. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission. 

1.  Railroad  Commission  has  no  authority  to  compel  railroads  to 
make  a  lower  rate  to  certain  classes  of  passengers,  but  railroad  companies 
may  of  their  own-  volition  give  reduced  rates  to  homeseekers.  In  re 
Construction  of  Chap.  362,  Laws  of  1905,  1905,  1  R.  C.  1. 

HOURS  OF  USE. 

Hours  during  which  current  is  used  as  element  considered  in  making 
electric  rates,  see  Rates — Electric,  30-33. 

HYDRANT  RENTALS. 

See  Rates — Water,  25. 

HYDRAULIC  POWER. 

Saving  from  operation  of  electric  plant  by  hydraulic  power  as  element 
considered  in  determining  value  of  electric  utility,  see  Valuation, 
127-128. 

ICE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  ice,  see  Rates — Railroad,  249 

ICE  BOAT. 

Reasonableness  of  rate  on  ice  boat,  see  Rates — Railroad,  250. 

ILLUMINATED  SIGN. 

Installation  of,  for  protection  of  railroad  crossing,  see  Railroads,  22. 
of  railway  crossing,  see  Interurban  Railways,  1. 


130  Illumination  Measurements 


ILLUMINATION  MEASUREMENTS. 

In   testing  the  performance   of  street  lighting  systems,   see   Electric 
Utilities,  33-34. 

IMPLEMENTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

INCIDENTAL     OR    SMALL    POWER    APPLIANCES. 

Rates  for  incidental  electrical  appliances,  see  Rates — Electric,  17. 
Treatment    of   incidental    electrical    appliances    in    determining    active 
lighting  load,  see  Rates — Electric,  15-16. 

INDETERMINATE  PERMIT. 

See  also  Franchises. 

Indeterminate  permit  possesses  no  value  upon  termination  of  grant,  see 
Valuation,  34. 

Authority  to  construct  plant. 

1.  No  company  can  lawfully  construct  a  plant  until  it  has  obtained 
authority  from  the  municipality.  In  re  Appl.  Interstate  U.  ifc  P.  Co. 
et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  603,  611. 

Continuous  operation — Definition  of.    ^ 

2.  The  words  "operating  under  an  existing  permit"  do  not  suggest, 
necessarily,  in  continuous  operation,  absence  of  momentary  or  reasonable 
cessation.  Excusable,  temporary  suspensions,  involving  no  purpose  to 
abandon,  the  owner  being  willing  and  seasonably,  under  the  circumstances, 
able  to  resume  and  doing  so,  as  in  this  case,  satisfied  the  calls  of  a  "public 
utility  operating  under  any  indeterminate  permit"  (sec.  1797/77-79). 
{Calumet  Service  Co.  v.  Chilton,  1912,  148  Wis.  334.)  In  re  Appl.  Interstate 
Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  603,  611. 

Definition  of  indeterminate  permit. 

3.  An  indeterminate  permit  is  defined  in  the  statute  as  meaning  and 
embracing  "every  grant,  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  state,  to  any 
corporation  *  *  *  of  power,  right  or  privilege  to  own,  operate,  manage  or 
control  any  plant  *  *  *  within  this  state  for  the  production,  transmission, 
delivery  or  furnishing  of  heat,  light,  water  or  power,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  or  for  the  public,  which  shall  continue  in  force  until  such 
time  as  the  municipality  shall  exercise  its  option  to  purchase,  as  provided 
in  this  act  *  *  *  "  (Wisconsin  Stats.,  sec.  1797/n-l,  subd.  5.)  In  re 
Cashton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908.  3  R.  G.  67,  83-84. 


' Indeterminate  Permit       131 

EflFect  of  surrendering  franchise  and  receiving  in  lieu  thereof  an 
indeterminate  permit. 

4.  The  legislature,  in  granting  to  a  public  utility  the  right  to  surrender 
its  franchise  and  receive  in  lieu  thereof  an  indeterminate  permit,  did  not 
thereby  make  it  optional  with  the  utility  whether  it  would  subject  itself 
to  the  regulatory  powers  of  the  Commission.  To  place  such  a  construction 
upon  the  section  thus  providing,  would  be  to  destroy  the  meaning  of 
other  sections,  and,  in  fact,  render  nugatory  the  main  purposes  of  the  act. 
City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  305;  City  of 
Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wrks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  74,  95. 

Indeterminate  permit  not  absolutely  exclusive. 

5.  Companies  holding  indeterminate  permits,  whether  for  single  or 
joint  utilities,  have  assumed  the  responsibility  for  the  highest  reasonable 
development  of  their  business  as  well  as  for  adequate  distribution  and  sale. 
For  this  reason  the  Public  Utilities  Law  does  not  make  an  indeterminate 
permit  entirely  exclusive,  but  allows  this  Commission  to  grant  similar 
rights  to  competing  plants  where  conditions  warrant  the  establishment  of 
such  competing  plants.  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G  &  El.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  C.  100,  109. 

Rights  acquired  under  indeterminate  permit. 

6.  Under  the  statute  an  indeterminate  permit  is  more  valuable  than 
the  ordinary  special  franchises,  because,  under  the  permit,  the  company 
has  a  legally  protected  monopoly  and  is  subject  to  no  different  supervision 
and  regulation  than  it  would  have  been  had  it  continued  to  operate  under 
its  original  grant.  Furthermore,  its  investment  is  now  protected 
not  only  against  the  consequences  of  competition,  but  also  against 
the  possibility  of  total  loss  on  the  expiration  of  the  original  grant.  It  can 
never  be  deprived  of  its  property  except  on  the  payment  of  the  fair  value 
thereof  by  the  municipality.  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  W.  Wks.  Co., 
1910,  5.  R.  C.  215,  284-285;  In  re  Appleton  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G. 
97,  119. 

Term  of  life. 

7.  Obviously,  the  term  of  the  indeterminate  permit  is  indefinite  and 
limited  only  by  the  happening  of  the  event  specified  in  the  statute.  The 
moment  the  municipality  exercises  its  option  to  purchase  the  plant  of  a 
public  utiUty  operating  under  an  indeterminate  permit,  the  life  of  such 
permit  is  terminated.     In  re  Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  3.  R.  C.  67,  84. 

Time  allowed  for  completion  of  enterprise. 

8.  Every  company  acting  in  good  faith  is  entitled  to  a  reasonable 
time  within  which  to  promote  and  complete  the  project  for  which  an  inde- 
terminate permit  is  granted.  This  is  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  law 
as  expressed  by  the  supreme  court  in  Calumet  Service  Co.  v.  Chilton,  1912, 
148  Wis.  334;  135  N.  W.  131, 144.  In  re  Appl.  Interstate  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  et  al, 
1912,  10  R.  C.  603,  611. 


132  ''Indispensable'* 


"INDISPENSABLE." 

Definition  of  term  "indispensable,"  see  Practically  Indispensable,"  1. 

INDUSTRIAL  TRACKS. 

See  Switch  Connections. 

INJURIES  AND  DAMAGES. 

Sums  expended  for  injuries  and  damages  as  element  considered  in  making 
rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — Electric,  28. 

Allowance  for  reserve  for  bijuries  and  damages. 

1.  An  allowance  of  4.5  per  cent  of  the  gross  earnings  for  1912  and  5 
per  cent  for  the  first  six  months  of  1913  is  deemed  adequate  for  the  re- 
serve for  injuries  and  damages.  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  in 
Milwaukee,  1913,    13  R.  C.  178,  225-226. 

INSPECTION. 

Inspection  of  consumers'  electrical  installations,  see  Electric  Utilities, 
43. 

INSTALLATION  CHARGE. 

Permissible  to  collect  special  installation  charge  for  protected  telephone 
wires,  see  Rates — Telephone,  44. 

INSTRUMENT  RENTAL. 

See  Equipment  Rental. 

INTANGIBLE  VALUE. 

See  Valuation,  28-36,  38-59,  130-140. 

INTERCHANGE  OF  TRAFFIC. 

See  also  Connecting  Carriers. 

Adjustment  of  train  schedules  between  connecting  carriers  to  provide  for 
interchange  of  traffic,  see  Train  Service,  8,  14-16. 

Commission  can  compel  railway  companies  to  provide  reasonable  facilities 
for  the  interchange  of  traffic  between  their  respective  lines,  but 
has  no  authority  to  compel  interchange  of  traffic  between  land  and 
water  carriers,  see  Railroad  Commission,  52,  121. 

Legal  obligation  of  railway  companies  with  regard  to  interchange  of 
traffic,  see  Switch   Connections,  27. 


Interstate  Commerce  '  133 


INTEREST. 

See  also  Return. 

Allowance  for  interest  only  large  enough  to  pay  interest  on  bonded  in- 
debtedness of  municipal  electric  plant,  see  Rates — Electric,  36. 
Apportionment  of  interest  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for  electric 
utilities,  see  Accounting,  21. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  51-52. 
for  railroads,  see  Accounting,  128. 
for  telephone  utihties,  see  Accounting,  162. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  178. 
As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  128. 
Elimination  of  interest  as  element  in  making  rates  for  municipal  utilities, 
discrimination  in  favor  of  consumers  as  against  taxpayers,  see  Dis- 
crimination, 45. 
Interest  during  construction  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities, 

see  Valuation,  90-91. 
Interest  on  bonds  and  dividends  on  stock  of  railroad  company  appor- 
tioned between  intrastate  and  interstate  traffic  on  basis  of  miles  of 
road,  see  Accounting,  135. 
What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return  for  interest  for  public  utilities,  see 
Return,  15-46. 
for  railroads,  see  Return,  47-51. 

INTERLOCKING  PLANTS. 

See  Railroads;  Street  Railways. 

INTERRUPTED  SERVICE. 

Extra  charges  for  temporary  telephone  service,  see  Rates — ^Telephone, 
70-71. 

INTERSTATE  COMMERCE. 

Commission  without  jurisdiction  over  interstate  commerce,  see  Railroad 
Commission,  53-57. 

Power  of  Commission  with  respect  to  stopping  of  interstate  trains,  see 
Railroad  Commission,  58-60. 

Reasonable  regulation  of  grain  elevator  situated  within  the  state  and 
owned  by  interstate  railroad  is  not  unlawful  regulation  of  interstate 
commerce,  see  Warehouses,  2. 

Service  to  local  stations  by  through  interstate  trains,  see  Train  Service, 
20-21. 

Switching  service,  ownership  of  commodity  switched,  immaterial  in  de- 
termining interstate  or  intrastate  character  of  the  service,  see 
Transportation,  5. 

What  transportation  is  interstate  and  what  intrastate,  see  Transporta- 
tion, 3-8. 


134  Interstate  Commerce  Act 


INTERSTATE  COMMERCE  ACT. 

Construction  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  placed  upon  provisions  of 
the  act  which  were  incorporated  in  the  Wisconsin  Railroad  Law, 
see  Railroad  Law,  2. 

Scope  and  purpose  of  act,  see  Railroad  Law,  9. 

INTERSTATE  COMMERCE  COMMISSION. 

Block  express  rates  between  Wisconsin  points  ordered  reduced  to  an 
equality  with  express  rates  fixed  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission when  they  exceed  the  latter,  see  Rates — Express,  17. 

Jurisdictioir  of  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  over  service  and  facili- 
ties of  railroad  companies,  switch  connections  for  intrastate  com- 
merce, see  Railroad  Commission,  101. 

INTERSTATE  SHIPMENTS. 

Commission  has  no  power  to  compel  carriers  to  make  joint  rates  between 
points  in  this  state  and  neighboring  states,  see  Railroad  Commis- 
sion, 55. 

Delivery  at  destination,  jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  delivery  of  inter- 
state shipments  upon  their  arrival  within  the  state,  jurisdiction  in 
absence  of  congressional  action,  see  Railroad  Commission,  57, 

INTERSTATE  TRAFFIC. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  of  railroad  between  interstate  and  intrastate 

traffic,  see  Accounting,  132-135. 
Relation  of  interstate  and  intrastate  traffic  as  element  considered  in 

making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  149. 

INTERSTATE  TRAINS. 

See  also  Interstate  Commerce. 

Interstate  trains  required  to  stop  or  to  make  proper  connections,  when 
such  changes  are  necessary  for  adequate  service,  see  Train  Serv- 
ice, 15. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  interstate  trains,  see  Railroad  Com- 
mission, 58-60. 

INTERSTATE  TRANSPORTATION. 

See  Interstate  Commerce;  Transportation. 

INTERURBAN  RAILWAY  RATES. 

See  Rates — Interurban. 


Interurban  Railways. — Construction,  mainf.  and  equipm.     135 

INTERURBAN  RAILWAYS. 

See  atso  Street  Railways. 

Certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity,  see  Certificate  of  Pub- 
lic Convenience  and  Necessity. 

Discrimination  as  between  passengers,  see  Discrimination,  ■54-64. 

Joint  use  of  tracks  with  street  railway,  see  Street  Railways,  21-26. 

Joint  or  through  rates,  power  of  Commission  to  establish  joint  rates  be- 
tween carriers  in  cases  where  there  is  no  mechanical  union  of 
tracks  for  the  interchange  of  traffic,  see  Railroad  Commission,  126. 

ACCOUNTING. 
See  Accounting,  69-88. 


I.  CONSTRUCTION.   MAINTENANCE  AND   EQUIPMENT. 

a.  Crossings — -interurban  by  high-     c.   Passenger  cars. 

way — protection  of.  d.  Station  facilities. 

b.  Crossings — street  crossings — re- 

pairs. 

II.  FARES  AND  TICKETS. 

a.  Fare  zones.  c.   Zone  system  rates. 

b.  Tickets. 

III.  INTERURBAN   RAILWAY   COMPANIES. 

IV.  OPERATION. 

a.   Rt^uirements  as  to  service  and  facilities. 


I.     CONSTRUCTION,    MAINTENANCE   AND   EQUIPMENT. 

a.    CROSSINGS — INTERURBAN   BY   HIGHWAY — PROTECTION   OF. 

Automatic  alarm  with  illuminated  sign. 

1.  Automatic  alarm  with  illuminated  sign  ordered  installed.  Town 
of  Pleasant  Prairie  v.  C.  &  M.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  557;  Town  of 
Caledonia  v.  C.  &  M.  El.  Rij.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  564;  Town  of  Somers  v. 
C.  6c  M.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  581;  Town  of  New  Berlin  v.  C.  &  N. 
W.  R.  Co.  el  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  358;  Town  of  Caledonia  v.  C.  &  M.  El.  Ry. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  386;  In  re  M.  N.  R.  Crossings  in  Port  Washington,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  550. 

Gates. 

2.  Gates  ordered  installed.  City  of  Kenosha  v.  C.  <fc  M.  EL  R.  Co.y 
1913,  11  R.  C.  560. 

Improvement  of  highway. 

3.  Improvement  of  highway  ordered.  Town  of  Caledonia  v.  C.  &  M. 
El.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  420;  Town  of  Caledonia  v.  C.  &  M.  El.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  C.  564;  Town  of  Somers  v.  C.  &  M.  El.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C. 
581;  Town  of  Granville  v.  M.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  612;  Town  of  Somers 
V.  C.  Sc  M.  El.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  377;  In  re  M.  N.  R.  Crossings  in 
Port  Washington,  1913,  12  R.  C.  550. 


136     Interurban  Railways. — Construction,  maint.  and  equipm. 

a.    CROSSINGS— INTERURBAN      BY      HIGHWAY — PROTECTION    OF. — 

Continued. 

Limitation  on  speed  of  cars. 

4.  Speed  of  cars  ordered  reduced.  Village  of  Cedar  Grove  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  712. 

Relocation  of  highway. 

5.  Railway  company  ordered  to  relocate  highway.  In  re  Crossings 
near  Mukwanago,  1913,  13  R.  C.  32. 

Removal  of  obstructions  to  view. 

6.  Railway  ordered  to  remove  obstructions  to  view.  Town  of  Cale- 
donia V.  C.  &  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  420;  1913,  11  R.  C.  564. 

When  necessary. 

7.  The  protection  of  a  crossing  which  is  rendered  dangerous  by  the 
physical  surroundings  should  not  be  delayed  because  of  the  fact  that  no 
serious  accidents  have  occurred  there.  Town  of  New  Berlin  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  12  R.  C.  358. 

b.    CROSSINGS — STREET  CROSSINGS — REPAIRS. 

Necessity  of. 

8.  The  city  of  DePere  prayed  that  the  Green  Bay  Traction  Co.  be 
required  to  properly  plank  the  street  crossings  in  the  city  of  DePere.  The 
respondent  agreed  to  make  necessary  repairs  at  street  crossings.  Under 
the  circumstances  no  action  of  the  Commission  is  required  in  the  premises. 
City  of  DePere  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  604. 

c.   PASSENGER   CARS. 

Adequacy  of  passenger  cars. 

9.  Question  of  adequacy  of  passenger  cars  passed  upon  in  McLaughlin 
V.  Wis.  EL  Rij.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  400;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  & 
L,  Co.  et  al,  1913,  13  R.  C.  89. 

d.    STATION   FACILITIES. 

Location  of  waiting  stations  in  cities. 

10.  On  interurban  lines  it  is  impossible  to  construct  waiting  stations 
at  every  stopping  point  within  cities.  The  cost  of  acquiring  the  necessary 
land  and  building  structures  would  be  so  great  as  to  make  the  expense  of 
rendering  such  service  prohibitive;  furtherniore,  the  convenience  of  the 
public  may  require  the  changing  of  stopping  points  from  time  to  time,  and 
in  such  event  new  stations  would  have  to  be  erected  and  old  ones  abandoned. 
City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  13  R.  C.  89,  98-99. 

II.  FARES  AND  TICKETS. 

a.    FARE   ZONES. 

Uniformity  in  interurban  fare  zones. 

11.  Uniformity  in  interurban  fare  zones  tends  to  reduce  the  inequali- 
ties of  the  zon6  system  to  a  minimum,  if  it  is  not  obtained  by  making 


Interurban  Railways. — Operation 137 

patrons  at  the  most  important  points  pay  an  increased  rate  by  reason  of 
residing  a  short  distance  beyond  a  zone  boundary.  Lamb  v.  Eastern 
Wis.  Ry.  &  Li.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  473,  495. 

"  b.   TICKETS. 
Labor  tickets. 

12.  It  would  seem  that  the  practice  of  steam  roads  and  some  electric 
roads  which  issue  commutation  tickets  in  the  form  of  cards  with  the  num- 
ber of  trips  indicated  upon  the  margin  is  preferable  to  the  method  employed 
by  the  respondent.  However,  until  it  appears  that  the  new  practice 
operates  prejudicially  against  some  of  the  users  of  labor  tickets,  no  order 
will  be  made  in  the  matter.  City  of  DePere  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  604,  616. 

Reduced  rate  tickets — Sale  of  tickets  on  cars. 

13.  The  conductors  have  ample  time,  in  addition  to  their  other  duties, 
to  handle  commutation  tickets.  If  the  sale  of  such  tickets  in  cars  results  in 
reducing  the  revenue  of  the  company  so  that  the  company  is  unable  to 
render  adequate  and  efficient  service,  then  public  interest  demands  that 
the  use  of  such  tickets  be  dicontinued  entirely  or  the  price  raised.  The 
sale  of  such  tickets  only  at  certain  offices  amounts  to  a  discrimination 
against  such  patrons  as  are  unable  to  avail  themselves  of  such  privileges. 
City  of  DePere  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  604,  615,  616. 

c.    ZONE   SYSTEM   RATES. 

See  Rates — Interurban;  Rates — Street  Railway. 

III.  INTERURBAN  RAILWAY  COMPANIES. 

Interurban  railway  companies,  not  subject  to  Two -Cent  Fare  Law  for  steam 
railroads,  see  Rates — Interurban,  9. 

IV.  OPERATION. 

a.    REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. 

See  also  Station  Facilities. 

Adequacy  of  service. 

14.  Question  of  adequacy  of  service  passed  upon  in  the  following 
cases:  City  of  DePere  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  604;  Chromaster 
V.  M.  N.  Ry.  Co.,  1912;  8  R.  C.  734;  1912,  9  R.  C.  534;  City  of  Racine  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  388;  Strache  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  404;  City  of  Kenosha  v.  Kenosha  El.  Ry.  Co.  et  al,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  508;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C. 
89. 

Frequency  of  stops. 

15.  Good  practice  upon  interurban  railroads  require  certain  definite 
stops  of  stations  along  the  line  for  the  receiving  and  discharging  of  passen- 
gers.    Unless  this  plan  is  followed,  the  usefulness  of  the  service  is  de- 


138  Interurban  Railways. — Operation 

■  ■■  ^ ■  ■■■  ■—  -     -       —     ^  — — —  ' 

stroyed  and  the  public  as  a  whole  is  inconvenienced.  Racine  v.  T.  M.  E. 
R.  &  L.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  388;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 
Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  89,  97-98. 

a.    REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. — Continued. 

Adequacy  of  service — Limitation  of  interurban  stops. 

16.  With  regard  to  the  limitation  of  interurban  stops  in  general,  it 
must  be  recognized  that  interurban  railways  are  designed  primarily  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  persons  traveling  between  cities  and  villages, 
and  between  rural  districts  and  cities  and  villages,  and  are  not  intended 
to  furnish  municipalities  with  local  street  car  service.  City  of  Racine  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  388,  393. 

Package  freight  service. 

17.  The  carrying  of  package  freight  on  passenger  cars  discommodes 
passengers  and  increases  the  hazards  of  operation,  and  the  policy  and 
schedule  of  the  respondent  which  tends  to  confine  the  carrying  of  packages 
to  emergency  cases  is  reasonable.  City  of  DePere  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co., 
1910.  5  R.  C.  604,  615-616. 


Routing  of  interurban  cars. 

18.  To  obtain  the  right  for  interurban  operation  on  the  west  side  would 
require  too  great  an  expenditure.  It  is  not  to  the  interest  of  the  public 
that  the  capitaUzation  of  the  company  should  be  unnecessarily  increased 
in  acquiring  such  rights.  The  respondent  is  rendering  service  in  substantial 
compliance  with  the  terms  of  its  franchises.  City  of  Janesville  v.  Rockford  &. 
Interurban  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  502,  507-508. 


Stopping  of  cars. 

.  19.  Interurban  railway  company  ordered  to  stop  cars  for  accommo- 
dation of  patrons.  Woodmont  Country  Club  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sz  L.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  525;  McKenney  et  at.  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  14 
R.  G.  811. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — Interurban. 

VALUATION. 
See  Valuation. 

INTERURBAN  RATES. 

See  Rates — Interurban. 

INTERVENING  PETITIONERS. 

When  not  to  be  heard. 

1.  In  proceedings  relating  to  the  construction  of  a  spur  track  as  pro- 
vided in  sec.  1797-1  Im,  (ch.  352,  laws  of  1907),  intervening  petitioners 
may  not  be  heard.    Jefferson  Ice  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  431. 


Iron  139 


INTRASTATE  TRAFFIC. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  of  railroad  between  interstate  and  intrastate 
traffic,  see  Accounting,  132-135. 

Net  earnings  from  intrastate  traffic  as  element  considered  in  making  rail- 
road rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  143. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  185. 

Relation  of  interstate  and  intrastate  traffic  as  element  considered  in  making 
railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  149. 

INVESTMENT. 

Amount  actually  invested,  as  fair  value  upon  which  returns  should  be 

made,  see  Valuation,  14-16. 
Amount  of  investment  as  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness 

of  street  railway  rates,  see  Rates — Street  Railway,  19. 
Investment  for  anticipated  needs,  as  element  in  valuation  of  public  utilities, 

see  Valuation,  92-93. 

INVESTMENTS. 

Protection  of  investments,  one  of  the  purposes  of  Public  Convenience  and 

Necessity  Law,   see  Certificate  of  Public    Convenience   and 

Necessity,  6. 

Public  utility  investments,  action  of  Commission  with  respect  to,  see 

Public  Utilities,  5-6. 

effect  of  Public  Utilities  Law  on  stability  of  return  on  investments  in 

public  utihty  enterprises,  see  Return,  13. 
effect  of  state  regulation  on  investments,  see  Public  Utilities,  8. 
Return  on  investment,  property  employed  in  a  public  or  quasi-public 
enterprise,  owner  entitled  to  reasonable  return,  see  Return,  4-5. 
Securities  of  pubhc  utilities  as  investments,  see  Securities,  1-2. 

Safety  of  public  utility  investments  under  public  utility  legisla- 
tion. 

1.  The  effect  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law,  the  laws  which  restrict  the 
issuance  of  security  and  other  similar  legislation,  is  to  eliminate  specula- 
tive elements  from  the  business  of  operating  utilities  of  this  kind  and  to 
increase  the  safety  of  investments  therein.  Investors  in  public  utilities 
may  find  that  under  the  Public  Utilities  Law  of  the  state  their  interests  are 
as  well,  if  not  better,  safeguarded  than  they  were  before  these  Taws  were 
enacted.  State  Journal  Prig.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  C.  501.  586,  632. 

IRON. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  iron,  see  Rates — Railroad,  279,  288. 


140 Iron  Ore 

IRON  ORE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  iron  ore,  see  Rates — Railroad,  262. 

IRON  PIPES. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

JIMMY  CARS. 

Carload  rates  for  jimmy  cars,  see  Rates — Railroad,  13. 

JOINT  OPERATION. 

Joint  operation  of  water  power  dams,  when  permitted,  see  Water  Pow- 
ers, 3. 

JOINT  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad;  Rates — Street  Railway. 

Power  of  legislature  to  confer  upon  Railroad  Commission  the  power  to 
order  joint  rates  to  be  made,  see  Railroad  Commission,  125. 

JOINT  TRACK. 

Apportionment  of  joint  track  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs 

for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  141. 
Apportionment  of  the  value  of  joint  track  in  the  determination  of  unit 

costs  for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  149. 

JOINT  USE. 

Joint  use  of  railroad  stations,  see  Station  Facilities,  17. 

Street  railways,  joint  use  of  tracks,  terms  and  conditions,  see  Street 

Railways,  23-26. 
Street  railways,  joint  use  of  tracks,  terms  and  conditions,  jurisdiction 

of  Commission,  see  Railroad  Commission,  129. 
Street  railway  and  interurban  railway,  joint  use  of  tracks,  see  Street 

Railways,  21. 
Telephone  utilities,  physical  connection,  terms  and  conditions  of  joint  use, 

see  Telephone  Utilities,  41. 

JOINT  USER  RATES. 

Joint  user  rates  for  telephone  service,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  31. 


Lamp  Renewals  141 


JUDICIAL  QUESTIONS. 

Right  of  company  to  operate  interurbaii  cars  under  a  street  railway 
franchise  a  judicial  question  and  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Commission,  see  Railroad  Commission,  61. 

JUDICIAL  REVIEW. 

Judicial  review  of  orders  of  Commission,  question  of  unreasonableness  or 
unlawfulness  of  order,  see  Railroad  Commission,  108-109. 

JURISDICTION. 

Jurisdiction  of  Railroad  Commission,  see  Railroad  Commission,  32-107. 
Validity  of  state  enactment  on  a  subject  over  which  the  state  and  federal 

authorities  have  concurrent  jurisdiction,   effect  of  congressional 

action,  see  State  Statutes,  2. 

JUST  COMPENSATION. 

See  Compensation. 

KEROSENE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  kerosene,  see  Rates — Railroad,  268. 

KILN  WOOD.      - 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  kiln  wood,  see  Rates — Railroad,  300. 

LABELS. 

Regulations  for  lab^s  on  freight  packages  of  butter,  cheese  and 
eggs. 

1.  Railroad  companies  ordered  to  cease  applying  rule  which  required 
that  each  package  of  butter,  cheese  and  eggs,  in  less  than  carload  shipments 
should  be  marked  with  the  full  name  and  address  of  the  consignee. 
Southern  Wis.  Cheese  Mens'  Prot.  Assn.  et  ai  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  459,  466-467;  Wis.  Butter  Mfrs.  &  Milk  Producers  Prot.  Assn. 
V.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  494,  497. 

LABOR  TICKETS. 

Labor  tickets  on  interurban  railways,  see  Interurban  Railways,  12. 

'  LAMP  RENEWALS. 

Cost  of  lamp  renewals  as  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric 

utilities,  see  Rates — Electric,  29. 
Lamps  to  be  renewed  free  by  electric  utility,  see  Rates — Electric,  18. 


142 Land 

LAND. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  the  physical  property  of  public  utilities, 

see  Valuation,  94-97. 
Method  of  appraising  land,  see  Valuation,  149-151. 

Right  of  donation  of  land. 

1.  The  Commission  can  hardly  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  that  a 
railroad  company  is  entitled  as  a  matter  of  right  to  a  donation  of  the  land 
which  it  is  necessary  to  possess  in  order  to  conduct  its  business  properly 
before  it  can  or  should  be  obliged  to  furnish  reasonable  and  necessary 
facilities  for  shippers.  Gruber  v.  M.  St.  P  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G. 
53.58. 

LANDSEEKERS'  RATES. 

See  HoMESEEKERs'  Rates. 

LAUNCH. 

Reasonableness  of  rate  on  launch,  see  Rates — Railroad,  259. 

LAUNDRY. 

Reasonableness  of  express  rates  on  laundry,  see  Rates — Express,  18. 

LAWFUL  RATE. 

See  Schedules  for  Utilities;  Schedules  or  Tariffs. 

LEAD. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  lead  ore,  see  Rates — Railroad,  263. 

LEAD  FOIL. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  lead  foil,  see  Rates — Railroad,  251. 

LEASING  OF  FACILITIES. 

Leasing  of  grain  elevators  to  favored  shipper  or  dealer  an  unjust  dis- 
crimination, see  Discrimination,  48. 

LEGAL  EXPENSES.  , 

Proceedings  before  the  Commission. 

1.  That  expense  items  such  as  those  incurred  in  proceedings  before 
the  Commission  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the  readjustment  of 
expenses,  would  seem  to  be  fairly  clear.     At  the  same  time  it  is  also  true 


License. — Issue  of  by  Comm.  to  deal  in  securities      143 

that  these  costs  require  the  same  scrutiny  as  many  other  costs.  In  view 
of. the  fact  that  proceedings  before  the  Commission  are  not  of  annual 
occurrence,  it  appears  that  the  greater  part  of  the  expenses  should  be 
distributed  over  more  than  one  year.  In  fact  it  would  hardly  be  just  to 
consumers  to  include  all  such  items  in  the  costs  upon  which  the  rates  for 
an  indeterminate  period  in  the  future  are  based.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co. 
V.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  653;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit 
W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  286. 

Proceedings  in  court. 

2.  It  seems  perfectly  clear  that  the  expenses  growing  out  of  litigation 
concerning  the  failure  of  the  utility  to  pay  for  pipe  installed  in  its  system 
were  not  incurred  by  the  company  in  connection  with  the  performance  of 
its  service  to  the  public.  Therefore,  it  seems  only  just  to  exclude  these 
expenses,  or  rather  such  general  law  expenses  as  were  not  incurred  in 
connection  with  the  performance  of  the  public  function  of  the  utility 
from  operating  expenses  when  it  is  determined  what  the  returns  of  the 
investment  have  been.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  Water  Supply  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  G.  497,  508. 

LEGAL  SERVICES. 

Legal  services  during  construction  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public 
utilities,  see  Valuation,  103-106. 

LENGTH  OF  HAUL. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
136-137. 

LESS  THAN  CARLOAD  LOTS. 

Granting  of  transit  privileges  does  not  affect  rates  on  less  than  carload 
lots,  see  Transit  Privileges,  7. 

LEVEL  AND  FLOW. 

Regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  navigable  waters,  see  Navigable  Waters, 
2-8. 

LIABILITY  OF  CARRIER. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
153. 

LICENSE. 

ISSUE  BY  GOMMISSION  OF  LIGENSE  TO  DEAL  IN  SEGURITIES. 

Public  hearing — Statutory  requirements  as  to  holding  of. 

1.  The  Gommission  is  not  required  by  statute  to  hold  a  public 
hearing  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  qualifications  of  an  appUcant 


144     License. — Issue  of  by  Comm.  to  deal  in  securities 

for  a  dealers'  license,  but  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  protest  and  the 
allegations  made  in  the  instant  case,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  hold  such 
a  hearing  in  order  to  obtain  sworn  testimony  upon  which  to  determine 
the  merits  of  the  application.  In  re  Appl.  Grieb  cfc  Greene  Co.  for  a 
Dealers'  License,  1914,  14  R.  C.  140,  141. 

LIFE  OF  PAVING. 

Life  of  paving  constructed  by  street  railway  company,  see  Depreciation, 
37. 

LIFE  OF  PUBLIC  UTILITY  PLANTS. 

See  Depreciation,  28-36,  41-51. 

LIFE  OF  STREET  RAILWAY  PLANTS. 

See  Depreciation,  38-40. 

LIGHTNING  ARRESTERS. 

Duty  of  electric  utility  to  provide  suitable  lightning  arresters  and  trans- 
formers, see  Electric  Utilities,  48. 

LIME. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  lime,  see  Rates — Railroad,  82. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime,  see  Rates — Railroad,  252. 

LIMESTONE. 

< 
Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  limestone  for  agricultural  purposes,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  83. 
Reasonableness    of   rates   on   limestone   for   agricultural   purposes,    see 

Rates— Railroad,  228,  244. 

LIMITATION  OF  STATUTE. 

Refund,  claim  for,  barred  by  the  limitations  of  the  statute,  see  Repara- 
tion, 29. 
Refunds,  computation  of  period  of  limitation,  see  Reparation,  30. 

LIMITATION  OF  STOPS. 

Limitation  of  stops  within  a  city  by  cars  of  interurban  railway,  see  Inter- 
urban  Railways,  16. 

LIMITED  OR  "OFF  PEAK"  SERVICE. 

Rates  for  limited  or  "off  peak"  electric  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  19. 


Loading  of  Cars  145 


LIMITS. 

Definition  of  yard  limits,  see  Yard  Limits,  1. 

LIQUOR. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  liquor,  see  Rates — Railroad,  254. 

"LISTENING  IN". 

"Listening  in"  on  telephone  lines  prohibited,  except  to  ascertain  whether 
line  is  open  or  busy,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  58. 

LITTER  CARRIERS. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

LIVE  STOCK. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  live  stock,  see  Rates — Railroad,  84. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  live  stock,  see  Rates — Railroad,  255. 

LOAD  FACTOR. 

As  matter  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 

Electric,  30-33. 
Consumers'  load  and  operating  conditions  of  electric  utilities,  see  Electric 

Utilities,  16-22. 

LOADING. 

Loading  per  car  as  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates 
—Railroad,  138-139. 
as  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  187-189. 
Minimum  carload  weights,  see  Weights. 

LOADING  OF  CARS. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  187-189. 

Length  of  time  allowed  by  railroad  company. 

1.  The  limitation  in  the  length  of  time  allowed  the  petitioner  for  load- 
ing cars  at  its  warehouse  appears,  in  view  of  the  small  station  and  limited 
sidetrack  facilities  at  Colfax,  to  have  been  reasonable.  Colfax  Produce 
Co.  V.  M,  St.  P.  <k  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914, 14  R.  C.  86,  89. 


146  Loading  per  Car 


LOADING  PER  CAR. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  railroads,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

138-139. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see. 

Rates — Railroad,  187-189. 

LOCAL  CONDITIONS. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

140. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  electric  rates,  see 
Rates — Electric,  73. 
of  telephone  rates,  see  Rates — Telephone,  56-57. 

LOCAL  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  103. 

LOCAL  TRAVEL. 

Stopping  of  interstate  train  carrying  U.  S.  mail  for  the  accommodation 
of  local  travel,  see  Train  Service,  21. 

LOCATION  OF  RAILROAD  STATION. 

See  Station  Facilities,  4-6.  ' 

LOCOMOTIVE  HEADLIGHTS. 

5ee  Railroads,  61. 

LOGGING  TRUCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  logging  trucks,  see  Rates — Railroad,  234. 

LOGS. 

Establishment  of  concentration  rates  on  logs,  see  Rates — Railroad,  35. 
Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  logs,  see  Rates — Railroad,  85. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs,  see  Rates — FIailroads,  256. 

LONG  AND  SHORT  HAUL. 

Necessary  to  disregard  long  and  short  haul  principle  under  certain  condi- 
tions in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  156. 

LONG  AND  SHORT  HOUR  USE. 

As  element  considered  in  making  electric  rates,  see   Rates — Electric, 
30-33. 


Maintenance  of  Equipment  147 


Discrimination  between  consumers  of  electric  utility  due  to  failure  to 
observe  difference  in  cost  between  long  and  short  hour  use  of  current, 
see  Discrimination,  15. 

LONG  DISTANCE  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad;  Rates — ^Telephone 

LONG  HAUL. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
135-137. 

LOSSES. 

Distribution  of  losses  resulting  from  rates  for  certain  classes  of  service, 
see  Rates — Gas,  5. 

LOW  GRADE  FREIGHT. 

Low  rates  for  carriage  of  low  grade  freight,  see  Rates — Railroad,  21. 

LUMBER. 

EstabUshment  of  concentration  rates  on  lumber,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

36. 
Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  lumber,  see  Rates — Railroad,  86. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber,  see  Rates — Railroad,  257. 

MACHINERY. 

Reduced  rates  on  machinery  and  materials  used  in  construction  of  manu- 
facturing plants,  see  Rates — Railroad,  226. 

MAINS. 

Charge  for  tapping  water  mains,  see  Rates — Water,  91. 
Extension  of  water  mains,  see  Water  Utilities,  3-12. 

MAINTENANCE  OF  EQUIPMENT. 

AUowance  for  cost  of  maintenance  of  equipment  of  street  rail- 
way. 

1.  In  the  instant  case  an  allowance  of  a  unit  cost  of  1.8  cts.  per  car- 
mile  is  considered  as  the  maximum  amount  which  can  justly  be  allowed 
for  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  equipment  under  normal  conditions.  In 
re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sz  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178,  219, 
225. 


148  Maintenance  of  Way  Expenses 


MAINTENANCE  OF  WAY  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  maintenance  of  way  expenses  in  the  determination  of 
unit  costs  for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  143. 

MAKING  RATES. 

See  Rates. 

MANAGEMENT. 

Financial  transactions  in  the  management  of  electric  utility,  see  Electric 
Utilities,  24-26. 
of  water  utility,  see  Water  Utilities,  20-22. 
Introduction  and  use  of  improved  facilities,  as  an  element  in  valuation 

of  gas  utilities,  see  Valuation,  89. 
Schedule  making  a  managerial  detail  for  street  railway  company,  see 

Street  Railways,  43. 
Skill  and  foresight  in  management,  as  an  element  in  valuation  of  gas  utili- 
ties, see  Valuation,  89. 
Wages  of  management  as  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric 
utilities,  see  Rates — Electric,  42. 
for  toll  bridges,  see  Rates — ^Toll  Bridge,  1. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  36-39. 
Wages  of  management  as  element  in  profits,  see  Return,  43-46. 

MANAGING  ABILITY. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — 
Water,  39. 

MANUFACTURERS'  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  169-171. 

MARKET  CONDITIONS. 

Established  market  conditions  as  matter  considered  in  determining  reason- 
ableness of  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  181. 

MARKET  VALUE. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utiUties,  see  Valuation,  60. 

MATERIALS  AND  SUPPLIES. 

Materials  sold  by  utility  should  be  sold  at  price  high  enough  to  cover 
cost  of  handling,  breakage,  waste,  etc.,  see  Electric  Utilities,  26. 


Meters 149 

MAXIMUM  DEMAND  RATES. 

See  Rates — Electric,  49. 

MAXIMUM  RATE. 

Maximum  rate  for  carrying  passengers,  see  Rates — Railroad,  266. 
Maximum  rates  for  electric  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  49. 

MAXIMUM  TARIFFS. 

All  published  railway  rates  in  force  April  1,  1905,  constituted  maximum 
tariffs  up  to  Dec.  31,  1905,  see  Rates — Railroad,  2. 

MAXIMUM  WATER  LEVEL. 

Establishment  of  maximum  and  minimum  water  level,  see  Navigable 
Waters,  4. 

METER  BOXES. 

Duty  of  consumer  to  furnish  water  meter  box,  see  Water  Utilities,  33. 

METER  RATES. 

4 

Discrimination  due  to  straight  meter  rates,  see  Discrimination,  25. 

METERS. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  99. 

Charge  for  additional  consumer  on  water  meter,  see  Minimum  Charges, 
16;  Rates — Water,  1. 

Charge  for  installing  meters,  see  Rates — Electric,  2. 

Discrimination  due  to  meter  rental  paid  to  utility  by  consumer,  see  Dis- 
crimination, 20, 38. 

Discrimination  in  rates  or  minimum  charges  on  account  of  ownership  of 
meters,  prohibited  under  Public  Utilities  Law,  see  Discrimina- 
tion, 13,  40. 

Double  meter  system  or  two-rate  system  for  gas  discontinued,  see  Rates — 
Gas,  2. 

Duty  of  utility  to  provide  meters,  see  Electric  Utilities,  46-47;  Gas 
Utilities,  4-5;  Water  Utilities,  27-29. 

Duty  of  utiUty  to  provide  special  kind  of  meters,  see  Gas  Utilities,  5. 

Duty  of  utility  to  repair  meters,  see  Water  Utilities,  30-31. 

Location  of  water  meters,  see  Water  Utilities,  32-33. 

Meter  rental,  charged  to  consumer  by  utility,  prohibited  under  public 
utihties  law,  see  Hates — Electric,  51. 

Meter  rental,  discrimination  due  to  meter  rental  paid  to  utiUty  by  con- 
sumer, see  Discrimination,  20,  38. 


150  Meters 


Meter  rental,  paid  by  utility  to  consumer  owning  meter,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  52;  Rates — Gas,  10;  Rates — Water,  60. 

Reconnection  charges  for  meters,  see  Rates — Electric,  86;  Rates — 
Gas,  19;  Rates — Heating,  4;  Rates — Water,  84. 

Right  of  utility  to  control  meters,  see  Gas  Utilities,  6. 

Utility  exempt  from  duty  of  supplying  meters  in  particular  cases,  see 
Electric  Utilities,  50;  Water  Utilities,  34. 

Utility  may  require  consumers  using  electric  fans  or  other  power  devices 
to  install  meters  at  their  own  expense  in  particular  cases,  see  Elec- 
tric Utilities,  50. 

Variation  in  minimum  charge  with  size  of  meter,  see  Minimum  Charges, 
7,  13.  19. 

Water  meters — Effect  of  metering  on  consumption — Partial  meter- 
ing. 

1.  A  judicious  placing  of  meters  where  the  greatest  waste  or  abuse  of 
the  flat  rate  privilege  has  been  shown,  shows  that  economies  to  be  brought 
about  after  50  per  cent  of  such  consumption  is  metered  are  very  doubtful, 
considering  the  large  increase  in  investment  made  necessary  by  metering 
the  remaining  sale.  City  of  Ripon.  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
1,  86;  Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  C.  26,  40. 

Exemption  of  certain  consumers — Basis  of  exemption. 

2.  There  are  certain  consumers  or  classes  of  consumers  for  whom 


meters  would  be  a  questionable  investment  on  the  part  of  a  utility.  Those 
consumers  who  have  no  sewer  connections  or  other  means  of  house  sewer- 
age obviously  cannot  waste  much  water,  except  for  lawn  and  garden 
sprinkling  purposes.  Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  C.  26,  40. 

MILEAGE  BOOKS. 

Recommended  that  five-hundred-mile  books  or  tickets,  good  for  purchaser 
or  any  member  of  his  family,  be  sold  at  ten  dollars,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  266. 

MILES  OF  ROAD. 

Miles  of  road  as  basis  for  apportionment  of  interest  on  bonds  and  divi- 
dends on  stock  between  intrastate  and  interstate  trafTic,  see  Ac- 
counting, 134-135. 

MILK. 

Reasonableness  of  rdtes  on  milk,  see  Rates — Railroad,  258. 
Train  service  for  milk  shipments,  see  Train  Service,  9. 

MILLING  IN  TRANSIT. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  172;  Transit  Privileges;  Train  Service. 


. Minimum  Charges. — Electric  utilities 151 

MILLING  IN  TRANSIT  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  172. 

MILL  PROPERTY. 

Mill  property  used  jointly  with  electric  property,  see  Electric  Utili- 
ties, 6. 

» 

MILL  REFUSE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  mill  refuse  or  "hog  fuel,"  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 248. 

MINIMUM  CARLOAD  WEIGHTS. 

See  Weights. 

MINIMUM  CHARGES. 

See  also  Service  Charges. 

Discrimination  in  minimum  charges,  see  Discrimination,  39. 
Reasonableness  of  advance  in  rates  in  particular  cases,  minimum  charges, 
see  Rates — Electric,  65;  Rates — Water,  69-70. 


I.      ELECTRIC    UTILITIES.  IV.      RAILROADS. 

II.     EXPRESS    COMPANIES.  V.      WATER    UTILITIES. 

III.     GAS    UTILITIES. 


I.     ELECTRIC  UTILITIES. 

Determination  of  minimum  charge. 

1.  By  adding  the  direct  consumer  expenses  to  the  fixed  charges  on 
the  meter  investment  and  also  making  a  sufficient  allowance  for  the  cur- 
rent which  will  be  consumed  under  the  minimum  bill,  the  minimum  charge 
may  be  definitely  determined.  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C,  360,  389-390;  In  re  Appl.  Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C. 
53,  56;  In  re  Appl.  Greenwood  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1910,  6  R.  C.  60,  62;  In  re 
Appl.  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  6  R.  C.  506,  517;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar 
Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  760;  Electric  Theater  et  al.  v.  Lodi  El.  Lt. 
Plant,  1911,  7  R.  C.  745,  753;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  C.  344,  356;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13 
R.  C.  712,  719;  In  re  Appl.  McGowan  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  325, 
327. 


152 Minimum  Charges. — Electric  utilities 

Diflference  in   minimuin   charge   on   account   of- ownership   of  in- 
strument or  facility. 

2.  No  distinction  as  to  minimum  charges  can  be  made  between  con- 
sumers who  own  their  meters  and  those  whose  meters  are  owned  by 
the  utility.  Steps  should  be  taken  to  remove  this  illegal  feature  of  the 
schedule  at  once.  In  re  Appl.  Bruce  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  474, 
476. 

Establishment  of  minimum  in  particular  cases. 

3.  Minimum  charges  for  electric  service  were  established  in  the  fol- 
lowing cases:  Lighting  Service.  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry.  &  Ltg.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  148;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Rij.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
311;  In  re  Appl.  Medford  Lt.  &  Htg.  Co.,  1908,2  R.  C.  421;  In  re  Appl. 
Cheiek  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  662;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt. 
&  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  768;  In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant, 

1909,  3  R.  G.  484;  In  re  Appl.  No.  Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
89;  In  re  Appl.  Cumberland  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  G.  214;  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501;  City  of  Ripon 
V.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  & 
El.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  139;  In  re  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.,  1910, 

5  R.  G.  190;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  G.  302;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
360;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555; 
In  re  Appl.  Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  53;  In  re  Appl.  Greenwood 
Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1910,  6  R.  G.  60;  In  re  Appl.  Durand  Lt.  6c  P.  Co.,  1911, 

6  R.  G.  334;  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  6  R.  G.  506;  City  of 
Beloit  V.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187;  Electric  Theater  et  al.  v. 
Lodi  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  7  R.  G.  745;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co., 

1911,  8  R.  G.  138;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
305;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  406;  In  re 
Appl.  Village  of  Whitehall,  1912,  9  R.  G.  479;  In  re  Invest.  Milw.  Electric 
Rates,  1912,  9  R.  G.  541;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.Lt.Sc  P.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  692;  Superior  Commit  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1912, 

10  R.  G.  704;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant  1912,  11  R. 
G.  197;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  G.  216;  In  re  Appl. 
Chetek  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  227;  In  re  Appl.  Monticello  El.  Lt. 
Co.,  1913,  U  R.  G.  265;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 

11  R.  G.  449;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  cfc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913;  12  R.  G. 
260;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  324; 
Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  337;  In  re 
Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  548;  In  re  Invest. 
Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G.  584;  In  re  Invest  Chippewa  Val. 
Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  19;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  G.  52;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13 . 
R.  G.  100;  In  re  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  259;  In  re  Appl. 
Darlington  El.  Lt.  <Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  344;  In  re  Appl.  City  of 
Menasha,  1913,  13  R.  G.  424;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  G.  444;  In  re  Appl.  Mt.  Horeb  lit.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
653;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Withee,  1914,  13  R.  G.  704;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee 


Minimum  Charges. — Electric  utilities 153 

El.  Lt.  S:  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  712;  In  re  Appl.  Milton  W.  U.  iSc  P.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  206;  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  227; 
In  re  Appl.  McGowan  W.  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  325;  In  re  Stevens  Pt. 
Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  350;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914, 

14  R.  C.  381;  Kittleson  et  al.  u.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  S:  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
485;  In  re  Appl.  Browntown  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  560;  Jones  et  al. 
V.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie 
Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  189;  In  re  Appl.  Burkhardt  Millg.  &  El. 
P.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  409;  In  re  Appl.  United  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  15 
R.  C.  505;  In  re  Appl.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  517;  In  re 
Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  cfc  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534. 

4.  Power  Service.  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  311;  768;  In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  484;  In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778;  In  re 
Appl.  No.  Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  89;  State  Journal  Prtg. 
Co.  V.  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit 
W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt. 
&  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  305;  In  re  Invest.   Milwaukee   Electric   Rates, 

1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
584;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52;  City  of  Wauke- 
sha V.  Waukesha  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  100;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington 
El.  Lt.  <Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  344;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Menasha,  1913, 

13  R.  G.  424;  Hoodet  al.  v.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  227;  In  re  Stev- 
ens Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,1914,  14  R.  G.  350;  In  re  Appl.  Richland  Center  El.  Lt.  &  W. 
Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  590;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914, 

15  R.  G.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  189; 
In  re  Appl  Manitowoc  W.  <Sc  El.  Plants,  19U,  15  R.  G.212;  In  re  Appl. 
United  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  505. 

Purpose  of  minimum  charge. 

5.  Minimum  rates  are  intended  to  cover  the  fixed  expenses  for  those 
who  use  so  little  current  that  the  cost  of  carrying  them  would  not  otherwise 
be  met.  In  re  Appl.  North  Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  89,  92; 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  41;  In  re  Appl. 
Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  574;  In  re  Appl. 
Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  53,  57;  In  re  Appl.  Greenwood  Mun. 
Lt.  Plant,  1910,  6  R.  G.  60,  61;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  717,  759-760;  Superior  Comnil  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.Lt.  & 
P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  804;  In  re  Appl.  Monticello  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  265,  266;  In  re  Appl.  McGowan  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
325,  327,  328;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
350,  374-375. 

Reasonableness  of  minimum  charge. 

6.  The  minimum  charge  should  yield  a  return  equal  to  the  consumer 
cost,  and  an  additional  amount  to  cover  the  value  of  the  smallest  amount  of 
current  used  by  any  class  of  consumers.  In  re  Appl.  Greenwood  Mun. 
Lt.  Plant,  1910,  6  R.  G.  60,  62;  In  re  Appl.  Milton  W.  U.  &  P.  ,Co.,  1914, 

14  R.  G.  206,  207;  In  re  Appl.  McGowan  W.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
325,  327;  In  re  Appl.  Browntown  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1914.  14  R.  G.  560,  564; 


154 Minimum  Charges. — Electric  utilUies 

In  re  AppL  Richland  Center  El.  Li.  &  W.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  590,  591; 
In  re  Appl.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  517,  519. 

Variation  in  minimum  charge  with  size  of  installation. 

7.  A  rate  schedule  in  which  the  minimum  rate  depends  on  the  size  of 
the  installation,  may  not  be  bad  in  principle,  for  it  is  more  than  likely  that 
the  minimum  should  bear  a  more  or  less  close  relation  to  that  part  of  the 
expense  which  depends  on  the  demand  as  well  as  to  those  expenses  which 
depend  on  the  number  of  customers  and  which  vary  with  this  number. 
In  re  Appl.  Cumberland  Man.  EL  Ltg.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  G.  214,  228-229. 

II.  EXPRESS  COMPANIES. 

Nature  of  minimum  charge. 

8.  Careful  analysis  of  express  operations  reveals  that  a  considerable 
expense  is  incurred,  for  every  shipment,  which  is  practically  the  same  for 
all  whether  the  shipments  weigh  one  ounce  or  fifty  pounds,  and  whether 
they  move  between  stations  ten  or  a  hundred  miles  apart.  The  shipment 
cost,  is  the  fixed  minimum  cost  of  handling  applying  to  all  shipments. 
In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  36. 

III.  GAS  UTILITIES. 

Determination  of  minimum  charge. 

9.  Minimum  charges,  like  practically  all  other  rates  and  charges 
levied  for  such  services  as  those  rendered  by  public  utilities,  should  be 
determined  with  reference  to  the  particular  parts  of  the  operating  expenses 
of  the  plant  that  are  involved.     In  re  Appl.  Green  Bay  Gas  &  El.  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  G.  101,  105;  City  of  Racine  u.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
228,  315;  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  477,  491; 
In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  201;  City  of  Neenah 
V.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  251,  258;  Lothrop  v.  Village 
of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479,  491;  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  u.  Superior 
W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  77S;  City  of  Green  Bwj  v.  Green  Bay 
G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  324,  330;  Yanko  et  al.  v.  Portage  American 
Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  136,  143. 

Establishment  of  minimum  charges  in  particular  cases. 

10.  Minimum  charges  for  gas  service  were  established  in  the  following 
cases:  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501; 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  In  re  Appl.  Green 
Bay  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  101;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  G.  Lt.  Co., 

1911,  '6  R.  G.  228;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
187;  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  477;  Lothrop 
et  al.  V.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  Gas 
Li.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  439;  1913,  11  R.  C.  309;  City  ofGreenBay  v.  GreenBay 
Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  324;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milw.  Gas  Lt.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  441;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G  cfc  El.  Co.,  1913. 
13  R.  G.  100;  Yanko  et  al.  v.  Portage  American  Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
136;  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  325;  Jones  et  al  v. 
Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121. 


Minimum  Charges. — Wafer  uiilities 155 

Purpose  of  minimum  charge. 

11.  The  chief  argument  for  the  minimum  charge  appears  to  be  that 
it  simply  covers  items  in  the  operating  expenses  of  the  plants,  that  in  the 
ordinary  rate  schedules  cannot  be  covered  in  any  other  way.  In  re  Appl. 
Green  Bay  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  101,  105;  Meyer  ct  al.  v.  Sheboygan 
Gas  U.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  439,  465. 

Reasonableness  of  minimum  charge, 

12.  The  reasonableness  of  the  amount  of  the  minimum  charge  is  most 
properly  tested  by  the  facts  in  each  case.  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v. 
Superior  W.  Li.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  778. 

•Variation  in  minimum  charge  with  size  of  meter. 

13.  A  fair  and  reasonable  rate  schedule  must  recognize,  by  its 
minimum  bill  or  service  charge,  the  varying  cost  per  meter  according  to 
the  size  of  meter  used.  City  of  Racine  u.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
228,  314. 

■  • 

IV.  RAILROADS. 

Reasonableness  of  minimum  charge  on  package  freight. 

14.  The  minimum  charge  of  40  cents  on  package  freight  now  in 
effect  on  shipments  between  points  in  Wisconsin  is  excessive  and  the 
former  charge  of  25  cents  should  be  restored  for  all  shipments  between 
points  in  Wisconsin  on  the  same  line  of  railway.  On  shipments  involving 
more  than  one  line  the  minimum  charge  shall  be  40  cents.  In  re  Minimum 
Charges  on  Package  Freight,  1907,  2  R.  C.  34,  36. 

V.  WATER  UTILITIES. 

Determination  of  minimum  charge. 

15.  The  minimum  bill  must  be  greater  than  the  total  of  the  direct 
consumer  and  meter  expenses,  because  practically  every  consumer  paying 
the  minimum  bill  has  used  considerable  water  during  the  year,  and  thereby 
incurred  some  output  expenses.  If  the  minimum  bill  covered  only  the 
bare  consumer  costs,  the  water  used  would  really  be  received  free  of  charge. 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  6c  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  83;  In  re  Appl 
Jefferson  Mun.  El  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  581;  Dick  et  al  v. 
Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  731,  766,  768-769;  In  re  Appl 
People's  W.  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  651,  656;  In  re  Appl  Fennimore 
Mun.  W.  Sc  LI  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  205;  Hughes  et  al  v.  Watertown 
W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  669,  680. 

Charge  for  additional  consumers  on  the  same  meter. 

16.  In  determining  charges  to  be  made  for  additional  consumers  on 
the  same  meter  the  fact  must  be  recognized  that  certain  meter  costs, 
such  as  interest,  depreciation  and  repairs,  become  proportionately  less 
per  customer  when  the  number  of  customers  supplied  through  the  meter 
is  increased.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  lower 
steps  for  rates  outlined  in  the  schedule  are  reached  sooner  when  more 


156 Minimum  Charges. —  Water  utilities ■ 

consumers  are  connected  to  the  same  meter.      In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta, 

1913,  12  R.  G.  532,  545.  Charges  for  additional  consumers  were  fixed  in 
the  following  cases  :-/n  re  Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913,  11  R.  C. 
690;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913, 12  R.  G.  532;  Dennett  et  at.  v.  City  of 
Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634. 

Establishment  of  minimum  charges  in  particular  cases. 

17.  Minimum  charges  for  water  service  were  established  in  the  fol- 
lowing cases:  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  /n  re 
Appl.  Peoples  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  651;  In  re  Appl.  City  of 
Viroqua,  1913,  11  R.  G.  330;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  690;  In  re  Appl.  New  Glarus  Lt.  <fc  W.  Plant,  1913,  11  R.  G.  711; 
In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194;  In  re 
Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G.  532;  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  291;  In  re  Appl.  Oconomowoc  Water  Dept.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
381;  Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485; 
Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634;  Hughes  et  al.  u. 
Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  669;  In  re  Park  Falls  Mun.  W.  Wks., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  284;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  534. 

Reasonableness  of  minimum  charge. 

18.  Reasonableness  of  rule  that  one  minimum  rate  shall  be  charged 
for  the  water  for  each  flat  in  a  flat  building  and  each  suite  of  offices  in  an 
office  building.  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  731, 
772. 

Reduction  of  the  quantity  of  water  allowed  under  the  minimum 
charge. 

19.  In  re  Appl.  Madison  City  W.  Wks.,  3  R.  G.  299. 

Variation  in  minimum  charge  with  size  of  meter. 

20.  A  minimum  bill  which  is  the  same,  regardless  of  the  size  of  the 
meter,  would  ignore  the  fact  that  the  investment  is  large  or  small  according 
to  the  size  of  the  meter,  or  if  made  an  average  amount  would  discriminate 
against  the  consumers  who  use  the  small  sizes.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon 
Lt  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  84;  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  731,  766. 

MINIMUM  FARES. 

See  Rates — Street  Railway,  13. 

MINIMUM  LOADING  REQUIREMENT. 

See  Weights. 

MINIMUM  RATES. 

See  Rates;  Minimum  Gharges. 


Monopoly  157 


MINIMUM  SERVICE. 

When  required. 

1.  Certain  minimum  service  must  be  performed  by  common  carrier 
regardless  of  financial  condition  and  amount  of  return.  Leonard  et  al.  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  724. 

MINIMUM  WATER  LEVEL. 

Establishment  of  maximum  and  minimum  water  level,  see  Navigable 
Waters,  4. 

MINIMUM  WEIGHTS. 

See  Weights. 

MISTAKE. 

Mistake  in  quoting  rate,  no  excuse  for  departure  from  published  rate,  see 
Schedules  or  Tariffs,  9. 

MIXED  CARLOAD. 

Reasonableness  of  rate  on  shipment  of  mixed  carload  of  grain,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  241. 

MIXTURES. 

Carload  rates  on  mixtures,  see  Rates — Railroad,  14. 

MONOPOLY. 

Capitalization  of  estimated  monopoly  profits,  see  Valuation,  33. 

Contracts  due  to  monopoly  conditions    in  telephone  business,  see  Con- 
tracts, 7. 

Monopolistic  nature  of  exclusive  franchises  to  operate  public  utilities, 
see  Franchises,  11. 

Monopoly  privilege  cannot  be  justly  capitalized  as  against    consumers, 
see  Valuation, 33. 

Monopoly   privilege   under   indeterminate   permit,   see   Indeterminate 
Permit,  6. 

Monopoly  value  as  element  in  valuation,  see  Valuation,  28-36. 

Prevention  of  monopoly  of  natural  resources  as  element  considered  in 
making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  144. 
as  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates, 
see  Rates — Railroad,  190. 


158 Monopoly. — Public  uiilities 

PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

Monopolistic  character  of  public  utilities,  competition  not  an  effective 
regulator  in  public  utilities  field,  see  Competition,  1. 

Power  of  monopoly  in  making  rates. 

L  Public  utilities  are  monopolistic  in  their  nature.  In  the  absence 
of  public  regulation  the  prices  of  the  services  rendered  by  them  are  usually 
fixed  at  what  the  traffic  will  bear.  When  not  regulated  by  law  or  public 
authorities,  the  rates  may  be  fixed  without  much  of  any  reference  to  what, 
under  the  circumstances,  may  be  reasonable  returns.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Aniigo 
Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  707-708. 

Theory  of  Public  Utilities  Law  as  to   monopolistic  character  of 
utility  enterprises, 

2.  It  is  well  understood  that  the  theory  of  the  ^Public  Utilities  Law 
is,  that  utility  enterprises  are  generally  monopolistic  in  their  character. 
This  theory  was  not  extended  to  include  telephone  companies.  These 
alone  are  left  in  a  class  by  themselves,  supposed  to  be  governed  by  the 
ordinary  laws  of  competition.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
1,  60. 

»  For  effect  of  Anti-duplication  Law  (ch.  610, 1913),  see  Telephone  Utilities,  9-25. 

MORTGAGE  CERTIFICATE  LAW. 

See  Public  Utilities  Law. 

MOTOR  BOAT. 

Reasonableness  of  rate  on  motor  boat,  see  Rates — Railroad,  259. 

MOTOR  CARS. 

Use  of  gasoline  motor  car  in  place  of  steam  passenger  train,  ste  Train 
Service,  18.    ' 

MOVEMENT  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  movement  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs 
for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  77. 

for  railroads,  see  Accounting,  131. 
As  element  considered  in  making  express  rates,  see  Rates — Express,  3. 

railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  131-134. 

MUNICIPAL  ACQUISITION  OF  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

Compensation  for  property  of  public  utilities  in  cases  of  municipal  ac- 
quisition, see  Electric  Utilities,  4-11;  Water  Utilities,  13-14. 

1.  In  case  of  municipal  acquisition  of  a  public  utility  the  municipality 
is  required  to  purchase  only  that  portion  of  the  property  actually  used  and 


Municipalities  159 


useful  for  the  convenience  of  the  pubUc.    In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Cashton, 
1908,  2  R.  C.  677,  691;  In  re  Cashion  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  80. 

2.  MunicipaUty  must  acquire  plant  as  well  as  business  of  existing 
utility.    City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  626. 

MUNICIPAL  EQUIPMENT  RENTAL. 

Apportionment  of  municipal  equipment  rental  in  the  determination  of 
unit  costs,  for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  23. 

MUNICIPAL  OWNERSHIP. 

Eifect  of  municipal  ownership. 

1.  If  the  city  owned  the  water  works  it  is  possible  that,  by  pledging 
all  of  its  taxable  property  as  well  as  its  powers  of  taxation,  the  city  could 
have  obtained  the  capital  required  for  the  construction  of  the  water  works 
at  a  somewhat  lower  rate  of  interest  than  the  rate  at  which  the  capital 
for  the  present  plant  was  obtained.  It  is  also  possible  that  the  city  in 
operating  its  own  plant  could  keep  down  the  executive  salaries  to  a  slightly 
lower  figure  than  the  salaries  now  paid  by  the  existing  company.  When 
it  comes  to  the  remaining  expenses  that  enter  into  the  cost  of  the  service, 
however,  the  situation  in  this  respect  is  likely  to  be  reversed.  While 
municipal  operation  is  more  successful  in  the  case  of  water  works  than  in 
the  case  of  other  public  utilities,  it  is  more  than  likely  that  the  increase 
in  the  other  operating  expenses  under  such  operation  would  fully  offset 
the  decrease  in  the  fixed  charges.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  721,  736,  737. 

MUNICIPALITIES. 

See  also  Cities;  Towns;  Villages. 

Abandonment  of  any  line  of  street  railway,  common  council  has  exclusive 

jurisdiction  to  authorize,  see  Street  Railways,  9. 
Complaint  against  public  utility.  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  when  filed 
•   in  behalf  of  a  municipality,  but  without  express  authority  from  the 
municipality,  see  Railroad  Commission,  34. 
Elections  for  municipal  acquisition  of  public  utility,  validity  of,  see  Water 

Utilities,  18. 
Electric  utilities,  municipal  acquisition  of,  see  Electric  Utilities,  4-15. 
Estoppel  against  municipal  corporations,  see  Estoppel,  1. 
Indebtedness,  capacity  of  city  to  incur,  see  Water  Utilities,  16. 
Indeterminate  permit,  necessity  of  grant  by  municipality,  see  Indeter- 
minate Permit,  1. 
Municipal  council,  jurisdiction  over  service  furnished  by  public  utility, 
see  Electric  Utilities,  1-2,  44. 
procedure  upon  municipal  acquisition  of  public  utility,  regularity  of, 

see  Electric  Utilities,  12;  Water  Utilities,  15-19. 
without  authority  to  compel  street  railway  companies  to  make  ex- 
tensions or  additions  to  line  in  the  absence  of  statutory  or 
charter  provisions,  see  Street  Railways,  17. 


160 Municipalities 


Ordinance  of  municipality  affecting  rates  or  service  of  public  utilities, 

reasonableness  of  ordinance  within  purview  of  Public  Utilities  Law, 

review  by  Commission,  see  Railroad  Commission,  130. 

regulating  street  railway  service,  superseded  by  power  subsequently 

conferred  upon  the  Railroad  Commission  by  law,  see  Railroad 

Commission,  144. 

Police  power  of  municipality,  ordinance  requiring  removal  of  poles  and 
wires  of  electric  utility,  grounds  for  exercise  of  power,  see  Electric 
Utilities,  2. 
ordinance  requiring  removal  of  telephone  poles  from  street,  conditions, 
prescribed  in  ordinance  not  a  proper  exercise  of  the  police 
power  delegated  to  a  municipality,    see  Telephone    Utili- 
ties, 2. 
power  of  municipality  to  regulate  location  of  poles  within  the  streets 
or  other  public  places,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  3-4. 

Public  service  corporations,  control  of,  by  municipal  councils,  see  Public 
Service  Corporations,  1. 

Public  utiUties,  control  of,  by  municipal  councils,  see  Public  Service 
Corporations,  1. 
municipal   acquisition   of,   see   Electric   Utilities,   4-15;   Water 

Utilities,  13-19. 
municipal  acquisition  of,  municipality  is  required  to  purchase  only 
that  portion  of  the  property  actually  used  and  useful  for  the 
convenience  of  the  public,  see  Public  Utilities  Law,  9-10. 
municipality  cannot  acquire  business  of  existing  utility  without  also 
acquiring  the  plant,  see  Public  Utilities  Law,  11. 

Speed  of  trains,  regulation  of  speed  within  a  municipality,  see  Railroads, 
31. 

Telephone  franchise,  authority  to  operate  a  telephone  utility  derived 
from  the  state  and  not  the  municipality,  see  Franchises,  15. 

Telephone  poles,  power  of  municipaUty  to  regulate  location  of  poles 
within  the  streets  or  other  public  places,  see  Telephone  Utili- 
ties, 3-4. 
Town  board,  authority  over  highway  and  railroad  crossing,  town  super- 
visors the  judges  under  the  statute  of  the  necessity  for  a  highway, 
see  Railroads,  7. 
petition  of,  as  condition  precedent  to  jurisdiction  of  Commission 

over  railroad  crossings,  see  Railroad  Commission,  77. 
proceedings  of,  in  laying  out  highway  for  railroad  crossing,  validity 
of   proceedings,    question    for    courts,    see    Railroad    Com- 
mission, 75. 

Village  board,  petition  of  village  board,  as  condition  precedent  to  juris- 
diction of  Commission  over  railroad  crossings,  see  Railroad 
Commission,  77. 

Water  mains,  reasonableness  of  municipal  ordinance  requiring  extension 
of  water  mains,  see  Water  Utilities,  8-9. 

Water  utilities,  municipal  acquisition  of,  see  Water  Utilities,  13-19. 


Navigable  Waters. — Regulation  of  level  and  flow  of      161 


NAILS,  STAPLES,  BARB  WIRE  AND  WIRE  FENCING. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  nails,  staples  and  wire,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
297. 

NAVIGABLE  WATERS. 

See  also  Water  Powers. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  obstructions  in  navigable  streams,  see 
Railroad  Commission,  64. 
over  river  improvements,  see  Railroad  Commission,  97. 


I.      ACCESS  TO   NAVIGABLE   WATERS. 
II.      REGULATION   OF   LEVEL  AND   FLOW   OF  WATER. 


I.  ACCESS  TO  NAVIGABLE  WATERS. 

Interference  with  access  by  construction  of  a  railroad  grade. 

1.  It  was  alleged  that  the  construction  of  the  new  grade  of  the 
C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.  along  the  Mississippi  river  in  front  of  the  village  of 
De  Soto,  Vernon  county,  has  cut  off  the  village  from  access  to  the  river 
for  navigation  purposes.  Held:  The  Commission  has  no  authority  to 
take  action  to  prevent  interference  with  the  access  of  the  residents  of  the 
village  to  the  river.  The  complaint  is  dismissed.  Andrew  et  al.  v. 
C.  B.  <fc  Q.  R.  Co,,  1913,  12  R.  C.  567. 

II.  REGULATION  OF  LEVEL  AND  FLOW  OF  WATER. 

Constitutionality  of  law. 

2.  Since  the  hearing  in  the  present  case,  the  supreme  court  of  Wis- 
consin in  the  Water  Power  Cases,  1912,  148  Wis.  124,  has  held  that  these 
sections  as  well  as  all  other  sections  of  the  statute  referred  to,  known  as 
the  Water  Power  Act,  except  sec.  1596,  are  unconstitutional.  Sec. 
1596  relates  only  to  the  necessity  for  a  permit  from  the  legislature  to 
construct  dams  and  has  no  relation  to  the  present  case.  Law  et  al.  v. 
Darlington  EL  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  380,  381-382. 

Gates  in  dam  to  control  level  and  flow. 

3.  The  Northwestern  Iron  Co.  was  ordered  to  construct  a  gate  in 
the  dam  in  question  with  a  clear  opening  27  feet  in  length  and  to  dredge 
the  bottom  of  the  river  upon  the  upstream  side  of  such  gate  to  a  level  at 
least  as  low  as  the  bottom  of  the  gate  to  be  constructed.  The  maximum 
height  of  the  water  permitted  by  the  dam  in  question  shall  not  exceed 
6  inches  above  the  top  of  the  present  spillway,  and  when  such  height  is 
reached  the  Northwestern  Iron  Co.  shall  open  the  gate  to  allow  the  water 
to  escape.  In  re  Reg.  of  Flow  of  Rock  River  in  Mayville,  1915,  15  R.  C. 
698. 


162       Navigable  Waters. — Regulation  of  level  and  flow  of 

Maximum  and  minimum  level — Establishment  of. 

4.  The  maximum  and  minimum  level  of  water  was  established  in 
the  following  cases:  In  re  High  Water  Mark  on  Rest  Lake  Reservoir, 
1914,  15  R.  C.  438;  In  re  Reg.  of  Flow  of  Rock  River  in  Mayville,  1915, 
15  R.  C.  698;  In  re  Reg.  Level  of  Water  on  Long  Lake,  1915,  15  R.  G.  708. 

Obstruction  in  stream. 

5.  The  Commission  finds:  1,  That  Rock  river  in  the  city  of  Janes- 
ville  is  a  navigable  stream.  2.  That  the  river  is  navigated  by  row  boats, 
niotorboats,  and  other  water  craft.  3.  That  the  piers  and  other  structures 
delineated  upon  the  map  on  file  at  the  office  of  the  Commission  constitute 
obstructions  to  navigation  and  to  the  natural  flow  of  the  water  in  the 
stream  and  have  a  tendency  to  narrow  the  channel  of  the  stream.  4.  That 
in  case  of  very  high  water,  logs,  lumber,  wood  and  drift  coming  down 
the  stream  are  likely  to  lodge  against  such  obstructions,  preventing  the 
free  passage  of  the  water  through  the  natural  channel  and  thereby  causing 
injury  and  damage  to  property  within  the  city  of  Janesville.  The 
legality  of  the  maintenance  of  the  obstructions  in  question  is  not  passed 
upon.  In  re  Obstructions  in  the  Rock  River  at  Janesville,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
190. 

6.  The  Commission  finds:  1.  That  Beaver  Dam  creek  or  Beaver 
Dam  river  in  the  city  of  Beaver  Dam  between  the  Upper  Woolen  Mill 
dam  and  the  Cotton  Mill  dam  is  a  navigable  stream.  2.  That  the  stream  is 
navigated  by  small  boats  used  for  fishing  and  pleasure,  and  for  the 
repairing  of  buildings  which  extend  over  the  submerged  land.  3.  That 
buildings  encroaching  upon  the  stream  as  indicated  upon  the  map  con- 
tained in  the  record  herein  constitute  obstructions  to  such  navigation. 
The  legality  of  the  maintenance  of  the  obstructions  in  question  is  not 
passed  upon.  In  re  Petition  Paramount  P.  &  Realty  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
474. 

Regulation  of  height  of  dam. 

7.  The  requirement  of  ch.  189,  laws  of  1907,  as  to  the  construction 
and  maintenance  of  the  dam  in  question  at  eighteen  feet  is  no  longer 
necessary  from  the  standpoint  of  navigation,  or  of  the  public  safety, 
and  should  be  dispensed  with  until  the  Commission,  upon  investigation 
had,  should  require  such  restriction  to  be  replaced.  In  re  Appl.  Wis. 
River  Power  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  471. 

River  improvements — Dredging. 

8.  The  Commission  has  power  to  regulate  all  river  improvements 
so  as  to  conserve  all  public  rights  in  the  rivers,  promote  the  improvement 
of  navigation  and  protect  life,  health  and  property,  but  has  no  jurisdiction 
over  the  authorization  of  contractors  to  do  work  or  over  their  dealings 
with  private  parties.  Freeholders,  etc.,  of  Dodge  County  v.  McWilliams, 
1914,  13  R.  C.  603. 

NECESSITY. 

See  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 


Notice 163 

NEEDS  OF  SHIPPER. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
142. 

NESTING. 

Definition  of  nesting,  see  Rates — Railroad,  174-175. 

NIGHT  SERVICE. 

Provision  for  night  telephone  service,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  46. 

NONSTOCKHOLDERS. 

Different   rates   for   stockholders    and    nonstockholders   prohibited,    see 
Discrimination,  90. 

NONSUBSCRIBERS. 

Rates  for  nonsubscriber  messages,  see  Rates — Telephone,  38-40. 

NORMAL  COSTS. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  electric  rates, 
see  Rates — Electric,  20,  69. 

NOTICE. 

Reasonable  notice  to  be  given  of  change  in  street  railway  time  schedules. 

Gillett  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al,  1907,  1  R.  C.  689,  698,  711. 
Time  of  giving  notice  of  intention  to  purchase  public  utility,  see  Electric 

Utilities,  15. 

Constructive  notice — Facts  putting  on  inquiry. 

1.  The  rule  seems  to  be  well  established  that  where  a  purchaser  has 
knowledge  of  any  fact  sufficient  to  put  a  prudent  man  upon  inquiry, 
which,  if  prosecuted  with  ordinary  diligence,  would  lead  to  actual  notice 
of  some  right  or  title  in  conflict  with  that  he  is  about  to  purchase,  it  is 
his  duty  to  make  the  inquiry  and  if  he  does  not  make  it,  he  is  guilty  of 
bad  faith  or  negligence  to  such  an  extent  that  the  law  will  presume  that 
he  made  it,  and  will  charge  him  with  the  actual  notice  he  would  have 
received  if  he  made  it.  {Parker  v.  Kane,  1854,  4  Wis.  1 ;  Cambridge  Valley 
Bank  v.  Delano,  1872,  48  N.  Y.  326;  Brinkman  v.  Jones,  1878,  44  Wis. 
498,  519;  Wade  on  Notice,  sec.  10  et  seq.)  Eden  Ind.  Lime  and  Stone 
Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  110.  112. 


164  Nuisance 


NUISANCE. 

Water  power  dams,  when  considered  public  nuisance,  see  Water  Powers,  1 . 

Commission  without  power  to  abate  nuisance. 

1.  Stresen-Reufer  ei  al.  v.  C.ScN.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9 R.  C.394;  Andrew 
et  al.  V.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1913.  12  R.  C.  567. 

NUMBER  OF  PACKAGES. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates  for  express 
companies,  see  Rates — Express,  8. 

OATS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  oats,  see  Rates— Railroad,  241. 

OBSOLESCENCE. 

As  element  in  depreciation,  see  Depreciation,  6. 

OBSOLETE  EQUIPMENT. 

As  matter  considered  in  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  152. 

OBSTRUCTIONS  IN  STREAM. 

See  Navigable  Waters,  5-6. 

OBSTRUCTIONS  TO  VIEW. 

Removal  of  obstructions  to  view  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see 
Railroads,  32. 

OFFICIALS. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission. 

1.  The  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  over  relations  between  utility 
officials,  unless  such  relations  impair  the  service  or  create  unreasonable 
rates.     Pospichal  et  al.  v.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  578,  579. 

"OFF  PEAK"   OR  LIMITED  SERVICE. 

Rates  for  limited  electric  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  19. 

OIL. 

Granting  of  transit  privileges  to  shippers  of  oil  in  barrels  in  carload  lots, 
see  Transit  Privileges,  3. 


qre_^ 165 

OIL  GAS. 

Standards  of  service  for  oil  gas,  see  Gas  Utilities,  11. 

ONIONS. 

Establishment  of  concentration  rate  on  cucumbers  and  onions,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  34. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  onions  and  cucumbers,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 261. 

OPERATING  EXPENSES. 

Operating  expense  accounts  of  public  utilities  and  railroads,  see  Account- 
ing. 

OPERATING  RECORDS. 

Importance  of  operating  records,  see  Electric  Utilities,  27-28. 

OPERATION. 

Details  of  operation  of  railroad  company  is  usually  left  to  the  manage- 
ment of  the  company,  see  Railroads,  63-64. 

OPERATION  OF  TRAINS. 

See  Train  Service. 

OPTIONAL  TOLL  RATES. 

See  Rates — ^Telephone,  77, 

ORDERS  OF  COMMISSION. 

Duty  of  Commission  to  issue  an  order  fixing  regulations  when  it  deter- 
mines that  the  service  or  rates  are  unreasonable,  see  Railroad 
Commission,  22-24. 

Judicial  review  of  orders  of  Commission,  question  of  unreasonableness  or 
unlawfulness  of  order,  see  Railroad  Commission,  108-109. 

ORDINANCE. 

Municipal  ordinance,  see  Municipalities. 

ORE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  iron,  lead  and  zinc  ore,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 262-264. 


166  Origindl  Cost 


ORIGINAL  COST. 

As  element  in  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  117-118,  159. 

"OTHER  LINE"  CHARGES. 

"Other  line"  charges  for  telephone  service,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  41. 

OUNCE  RATES. 

Ounce  rates  for  express  matter,  see  Rates — Express,  16. 

OUTAGE. 

Provision  for  outage  in  street  lighting,  see  Rates — Electric,  95. 

OUTPUT  COSTS. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  34. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Rates — Gas,  6. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  40-46. 

OUTPUT  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  output  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for 
electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  8. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  44. 
for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  63. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  174-175. 

OUTSIDE  CONSUMERS. 

Requirement  that  outside  consumers  of  a  municipal  electric  utility  fur- 
nish part  of  facilities  incident  to  the  service  not  necessarily  an  un- 
just discrimination,  see  Discrimination,  27. 

Rates  for  outside  consumers  of  a  municipal  utility. 

1.  Consumers  of  a  municipally  owned  utility  who  are  located  outside 
the  limits  of  the  municipality  stand  in  much  the  same  relation  to  the 
utility  as  they  would  if  it  were  a  private  enterprise  and  so  long  as  the  rate 
charged  them  is  fair  they  cannot  complain  of  discrimination  against  them 
merely  because  that  rate  is  slightly  higher  than  the  rate  charged  residents 
of  the  municipality.  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  260;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  337; 
1914,  14  R.  C.  381;  In  re  Ap^pl.  Richland  Center  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  590,  592. 


Parties  to  Action  167 


OVERCHARGES. 

See  Reparation. 

OVERHEAD  CONNECTIONS. 

See  Switch  Connections;  Street  Railways. 

OVERHEAD  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  overhead  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  of 
electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  19. 
of  gas  utihties,  see  Accounting,  50. 
of  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  70. 
of  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  144. 
Overhead  expenses  during  construction  as  element  in  the  valuation  of 
public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  103-106. 

OVERLOADED  LINES. 

See  Telephone  Utilities,  47. 

OVERLOADING. 

See  Excess  Loading. 

PACKAGE  FREIGHT. 

Carrying  of  package  freight  on  interurban  passenger  cars,  see  Interurban 
Railways,  17. 

Reasonableness  of  minimum  charge  on  package  freight,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 173. 

PACKAGES. 

Number  of  packages  as  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness 
of  rates  for  express  companies,  see  Rates — Express,  8. 

PAPER. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  paper,  see  Rates — Railroad,  265. 

PARTIES  TO  ACTION. 

Person  aggrieved  must  complain. 

1.  Commission  without  authority  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  com- 
plaints against  lawful  charges  unless  such  complaints  are  brought  by  the 
person  aggrieved.  Wausau  Adv.  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C. 
772. 


168  Parties  to  Action 


Must  signify  intention. 

2.  Complaint  of  carrier  dismissed  on  ground  that  the  successors  to 
the  property  and  rights  of  the  petitioner  had  not  signified  their  intention 
of  becoming  parties  to  the  action.  Cazenovia  Sc  Sauk  City  R.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc 
N,  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  744 

PARTY  LINE  RATES. 

Party  line  rates  in  telephone  service,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  42-43, 

PARTY  LINES. 

Failure  to  keep  party  telephone  lines  full  results  in  unjust  discrimination, 
see  Discrimination,  93. 

PASSENGER  CARS. 

Adequacy  of,  see  Interurban  Railways,  9;  Street  Railways,  33-34. 

PASSENGER  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  266. 

PASSENGER  SERVICE. 

See  Train  Service. 

PASSENGERS. 

Carrying  of  passengers  free  of  charge  unlawful,  see  Rates — Railroad,  50. 
Station  accommodations,  see  Station  Facilities. 
Train  service,  see  Train  Service. 

PASSENGER  TRAFFIC. 

Relation  between  freight  and  passenger  traffic  as  element  considered  in 
making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  148. 

PATENT  RIGHTS. 

As  element  in  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  62. 

PATTERNS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  foundry  patterns,  see  Rates — Railroad,  239. 

PAVING. 

Allowance  for  cost  of  paving  in  the  valuation  of  property  of  public  utili- 
ties, when  the  cost  was  not  actually  incurred,  see  Valuation,  107. 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  paving  constructed  by  street  railway  company, 
see  Depreciation,  37. 


Petroleum  Products  169 


PAVING  BLOCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  stone  paving  blocks,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
286. 

PAYMENT  OF  RATES. 

Regulation  as  to  payment  of  rates  for  services  rendered  by  public  utilities, 
see  Rules  and  Regulations,  7-30,  41. 

PAY  STATION. 

Installation  of  telephone  pay  station  in  railroad  station,  see  Station 
Facilities,  33-34. 

"PAY  WEIGHT." 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

138-139,  151-152. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  194. 
Proportion  of  "pay  weight"  in  carload  as  compared  to  less  than  carload 

freight,  see  Rates — Railroap.  12. 

PEAS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  peas,  see  Rates — Railroad,  267. 

PENALTIES. 

Regulation  as  to  payment  of  rates  for  services  rendered  by  pubHc  utility, 
provision  for  penalties,  see  Rules  and  Regulations,  14-18,  20. 

PETITION. 

Proceedings  before  Commission,  rehearing  upon  original  petition  sub- 
sequent to  vacation  of  order  by  court,  see  Procedure,  11. 

Sufficiency  of  petition,  withdrawal  of  names  prior  to  the  hearing  leaving 
less  than  the  required  number,  question  of  sufficiency  not  decided, 
see  Procedure,  7. 

PETROLEUM  PRODUCTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  petroleum  products,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
268. 


170 Physical  Connection. — Railroads 

PHYSICAL  CONNECTION. 

,       RAILROADS. 

Railroad  connections  at  crossings,  etc.,  within  town,  village  or  city,  see 
Connecting  Carriers,  1-4;  Switch  Connections,  13. 

TELEPHONE  UTILITIES. 

Physical  connection,  establishment  of,  conditions  precedent,  see  Tele- 
phone Utilities,  31. 
in  particular  cases,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  38-39. 
statutory  requirements,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  32-37. 
terms  and  conditions  of  joint  use,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  41. 
Right  of  telephone  company  to  refuse  connection  with  grounded  lines,  see 
Telephone  Utilities,  40. 

PHYSICAL  DATA. 

Physical  data,  importance  of,  see  Electric  Utilities,  28. 

PHYSICAL  PROPERTY. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  63-128. 
Determination  of  the  value  of  physical  property  of  pubhc  utilities,  see 
Valuation,  145-160. 

PICK-UP  AND  DELIVERY  SERVICE. 

Express  companies,  pick-up  and  delivery  service,  adequacy  of,  see  Express 
Companies,  2. 

Express    companies,    pick-up    and    delivery    service — Free    service 
limits. 

1.  Sec.  1798  of  the  statutes  fixes  free  delivery  district  of  the  United 
States  post  office  department  as  the  minimum  area  in  which  express  com- 
panies must  call  for  and  deliver  express.  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Wells  Fargo 
Exp.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  594,  596. 

PIECEMEAL  CONSTRUCTION. 

As  matter  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 
153. 

PINE  TRIMMINGS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  pine  trimmings  or  material  of  analogous  char- 
acter, see  Rates — Railroad,  270. 


Posts  171 


PLATFORM. 

Erection  of  platform  suitable  for  the  loading  and  unloading  of  various 
articles,  and  for  accommodation  of  passengers,  see  Station  Fa- 
cilities, 20. 

POLES. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  poles,  see  Rates — Railroad,  271. 
Telephone  poles,  power  of  municipality  to  regulate  location  of  poles  within 
the  street  ,or  other  public  places,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  3-4. 


POLES  AND  WIRES. 

Ordinance  requiring  removal  of  poles  and  wires  of  electric  utility,  reason- 
ableness of  ordinance,  see  Electric  Utilities,  2. 


'  POLICE  POWER. 

Police  power  of  municipaUty,  ordinance  requiring  removal  of  poles  and 
wires  of  electric  utility,  grounds  for  exercise  of  power,  see  Electric 
Utilities,  2. 
ordinance  requiring  removal  of  telephone  poles  from  street,  conditions 
prescribed  in  ordinance  not  a  proper  exercise  of  the  police 
power  delegated  to  a  municipality,    see   Telephone   Utili- 
ties, 2. 
power  to  regulate  location  of  poles  within  the  streets  or  other  public 
places,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  3-4. 

Police  power  over  special  train  service. 

1.  The  excursion  train  is  a  special  form  of  service  which  the  railroad 
is  not  compelled  to  furnish  and  which,  if  it  does  furnish,  is  wholly  within 
its  discretion  as  to  time  and  extent  of  the  service,  subject  only  to  the 
general  police  power  of  the  state  with  respect  to  public  health,  safety,  or 
equal  rights.  Hughson  et  al.  v.  D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  599, 
604. 

POSTING  OF  RATE  SCHEDULES. 

Publication  of  rates,  charges,  and  conditions  connected  therewith,  see 
Schedules  or  Tariffs,  11-16. 


POSTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  posts,  see  Rates — Railroad,  272. 


172  Potatoes 


POTATOES. 

Agreement  changing  division  of  joint  rate  on  potatoes  between  W.  G.  B. 

R.  Co.  and  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  see  Rates — Railroad,  70. 
Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  potatoes,  see  Rates — Railroad,  88. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  potatoes,  see  Rates — Railroad,  273. 

POTATO  PLANTERS. 

Classification  under  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad,  200 

POWER  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  power  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for 
electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  24. 
for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  71. 
for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  145. 

POWER  GENERATION  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  power  generation  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit 
costs  for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  25. 

POWER  RATES. 

See  Rates — Electric. 

"PRACTICALLY  INDISPENSAjBLE." 

Definition  of  term. 

1.  The  meaning  of  the  statutory  term  "practically  indispensable" 
may  be  deduced  from  the  definitions  of  terms  which  have  been  construed 
by  the  courts.  Courts  have  defined  the  word  "necessary"  and  from  its 
construction  we  can  deduce  the  proper  meaning  of  "indispensable."  Neces- 
sity is  recognized  as  a  matter  of  degree.  A  thing  may  be  necessary, 
more  necessary  and  indispensably  necessary.  (Cotton  et  al.  v.  The  Co. 
Commissioners,  1856,  6  Fla.  629.)  When  a  thing  is  necessary,  therefore, 
it  may  be  merely  "convenient  or  profitable,"  or  it  may  be  "indispensable 
to  the  accomplishment  of  a  purpose."  (St.  Louis  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Trustees 
1867,  43  111.  307.)  In  other  words,  "indispensable"  is  recognized  as  the 
superlative  of  "necessary."  To  define  necessary  in  its  most  rigid  sense, 
would  be  to  say  it  is  synonymous  with  indispensable — that  without 
which  a  certain  purpose  cannot  be  acQomplished.  Webster's  definition  is 
"absolutely  necessary  or  requisite,"  "impossible  to  be  remitted  or  spared." 
Hurst  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  283,  286-287. 

PRACTICE. 

See  Procedure. 


Privileges  173 


PREFERENCE  OF  PREJUDICE. 

See  Discrimination. 

PRESCRIPTIVE  RIGHTS. 

Prescriptive  rights  to  flood  land — Right  must  be  proved. 

1.  The  existence  of  prescriptive  rights  to  flood  the  land  upon  which 
reserved  rights  to  affect  this  result  are  not  held,  is  disputed  by  the  applicant 
and  in  the  absence  of  sufTicient  proof  we  must  presume  that  such  rights 
do  not  exist.  Where  some  lands  bordering  bodies  of  water  are  burdened 
with  flowage  rights  while  other  lands  are  not,  the  latter  parcels  are  entitled 
to  protection  from  flooding  and  the  claim  that  the  majority  of  the  land  is 
burdened  with  flowage  privileges  does  not  impair  the  right  to  such  pro- 
tection.   In  re  Reg.  Level  of  Water  on  Long  Lake,  1915,  15  R.  G.  708,  710. 

* 

PRESENT  VALUE. 

Determination  of  present  value  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  160. 
Present  value  of  physical  property  as  matter  considered  in  the  valuation 
of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  119-121. 

PRICES. 

Unit  prices  in  determination  of  value  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 
68-70, 154-156. 

PRINT  PAPER. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  print  paper,  see  Rates — Railroad,  265. 

PRIVATE  CARS. 

Railroad  company  not  a  common  carrier  of  private  cars,  see  Train  Serv- 
ice, 19. 

PRIVATE  HIGHWAY. 

Operation  of  spur  track  as  a  private  highway,  see  Railroads,  76. 

PRIVATE  SIDETRACKS. 

See  Switch  Connections. 

PRIVILEGES. 

See  Transit  Privileges. 


174  Procedure. — Proceedings  before  Commission 


PROCEDURE. 

See  also  Railroad  Commission. 

PROCEEDINGS  BEFORE  THE  COMMISSION. 

Complaint  against  carrier  for  reparation. 

1.  According  to  the  usual  practice  of  the  Commission  the  matter  of 
refunds  is  determined  in  a  separate  proceeding  based  upon  a  formal  peti- 
tion therein.  Duluth-Superior  Millg.  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
459,  461-462. 

Complaint  by  an  individual  under  the  Public  Utilities  Law. 

2.  The  complaint  of  an  individual  consumer  does  not  give  the  Com- 
mission jurisdiction.    In  re  Invest.  Hudson  Water  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  138. 

Complaint  by  any  body  politic,  society,  organization,  etc.,  under 
the  Public  Utilities  Law. 

3.  Under  the  Public  Utilities  Law  a  complaint  can  be  made  by  "any- 
mercantile,  agricultural  or  manufacturing  society  or  by  any  body  politic, 
or  municipal  organization  or  by  any  twenty-five  persons,  firms,  corpora- 
tions or  associations."    In  re  Invest.  Hudson  Water  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  138. 

4.  It  is  only  mercantile,  agricultural  and  manufacturing  societies, 
bodies  politic  and  municipal  corporations  that,  acting  individually,  can 
invoke  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission.  (Wisconsin  Statutes,  sec. 
1797/72-43.)  National  Travelers'  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  678,  690. 

Continuance — Motion  for  continuance  of  hearing  on  an  applica- 
tion for  a  certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity. 

5.  A  motion  is  made  for  a  continuance  of  the  hearing  on  an  application 
of  the  Milwaukee  Lt.  Ht.  &  Tr.  Co.  for  a  certificate  of  public  convenience 
and  necessity,  for  the  apparent  purpose  of  enabling  a  competing  company 
to  file  an  application  in  order  that  both  companies  may  be  granted  a 
certificate.  Held:  that  the  fact  that  some  competing  company  may  in 
the  future  file  an  application  paralleling  the  proposed  route,  can  have  no 
effect  on  whether  public  convenience  and  necessity  require  the  construc- 
tion of  the  proposed  line.  Motion  for  continuance  is  denied.  In  re  Appl. 
Milwaukee  Lt.  Ht.  <Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  288,  292. 

Decisions  or  orders  of  Commission. 

6.  Under  both  the  law  and  the  practice  no  decisions  are  issued  or 
orders  made  by  this  Commission  except  in  formal  proceedings.  In  re 
Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  71,  72. 

Institution  of  proceedings,  withdrawal  of  names. 

7.  The  question  of  the  sufficiency  of  a  petition  where  names  are  with- 
drawn prior  to  hearing  leaving  less  than  the  required  number,  is  not  passed 
upon  for  the  reason  that  the  application  of  the  utility  covers  the  matters 
complained  of.  In  re  Platteville,  Hewey  Sc  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
608,610. 


Procedure. — Proceedings  before  Commission  175 


Intention  of  utility  to  present  a  new  schedule  at  some  future  date. 

8.  The  Commission  cannot  withhold  action  upon  a  complaint  with 
respect  to  rates  charged  by  the  lessee  of  a  utility  plant  merely  because  it 
is  the  intention  of  the  owner  of  the  utility  plant  to  present  another  schedule 
of  rates  at  some  future  date  when  he  reassumes  control  of  the  property. 
In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Withee,  1914,  13  R.  G.  704,  706. 

Petition    by   individuals   for    separation    of  grades    at    a   railroad 
crossing. 

9.  Sec.  1797-12e  of  the  statutes  requires  a  petition  for  a  separation 
of  grades  to  be  lodged  by  the  common  council  of  a  city,  the  village  board 
of  a  village,  the  town  board  of  a  town  or  by  a  railway  company,  and  the 
Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  in  such  proceedings  when  instituted  by  an 
individual.    Rueckert  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  749,  750. 

Rehearing. 

10.  A  prayer  for  a  rehearing  in  the  case  of  Fullmer  v.  Wausau  Street 
Railroad  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  520,  and  for  the  suspension  of  the  order  of 
the  Commission  pending  the  decision  in  the  rehearing  proceedings, 
was  made  on  the  ground  that  the  data  before  the  Commission  were  not 
sufficiently  complete  to  enable  it  to  arrive  at  a  correct  conclusion.  Held: 
that  if  the  allegations  of  the  respondent  company  can  be  sustained,  a 
modification  of  the  order  must  necessarily  follow.  A  rehearing  is  ordered 
and  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  Commission  is  suspended  pending  the 
decision  in  the  rehearing  proceedings.  Fullmer  v.  Wausau  Street  R.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  555,  556. 

Rehearing  upon  original  petition  subsequent  to  vacation  of  order 
by  court. 

11.  The  present  proceeding  for  a  rehearing  was  instituted  subsequent 
to  the  vacation  of  the  original  order  of  the  Commission  by  the  court. 
A  new  petition  in  the  matter  was  filed  in  order  to  bring  the  matter  properly 
before  the  Commission  and  to  obviate  any  possible  objection  that  might 
be  interposed  to  the  Commission's  proceeding  to  re-hear  the  matter 
upon  the  original  petition  in  the  absence  of  any  expfess  statutory  enact- 
ment providing  for  such  rehearing.  Eden  Ind.  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911.  7  R.  C.  140.  146. 

Rehearing  while  court  review  of  order  of  Commission  pending. 

12.  We  do  not  deem  it  advisable  to  encourage  the  practice  of  granting 
rehearings  after  actions  have  been  brought  to  alter  or  amend  orders  of 
the  Commission.  The  procedure  for  reviewing  orders  of  the  Commission 
should  be  prosecuted  in  the  manner  provided  in  the  statutes  after  action 
has  once  been  commenced.  In  re  Appl.  Kaukauna  G.  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1913, 12  R.  C.  189,  190. 

Relief  must  be  pursued  in  manner  prescribed  by  statute. 

13.  An  injured  shipper,  in  order  to  obtain  relief  in  a  reparation  case, 
must  pursue  his  remedy  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  statute.  He  is 
not  permitted  to  sleep  upon  his  rights  until  his  remedy  is  barred  and 


176 Procedure. — Proceedings  before  Commission 

then  seek  to  enforce  the  same.  Pulpwood  Co.  of  Appleton  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  6  R.  C.  175,  177;  So.  Milwaukee  Fuel  Sz  Supply 
Co.v.  C.  dc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  473,  476. 

PROFITS. 

See  Return. 

PROPERTY  ACQUIRED  THROUGH  GIFT. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  109. 

PROPERTY  RIGHTS. 

Compensation    for    private    property    upon    municipal  acquisition,    see 

Eminent  Domain,  1-2. 
Franchises,  no  good  ground  upon  which  the  value  of  exclusive  franchises 

should  become  private  property,  see  Franchises,  11-12. 
Impairment  of  constitutional  guarantees  of  property  rights,  rights  not 

impaired  by  requirements  of  law  providing  for  physical  connection 

of  telephone  utilities,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  36. 
Operation  of  railroads  at  pecuniary  loss,  duty  to  operate,  see  Railroads, 

85-90. 
Operation  of  street  railways  at  pecuniary  loss,  duty  to  operate,  see  Street 

Railways,  19-20. 
Property  employed  in  public  or  quasi  public  enterprises,  owner  entitled 

to  reasonable  return,  see  Return,  2,  4-5. 
Protection  of  property  rights,  in  the  establishment  of  physical  connection 

for  telephone  utilities,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  33. 
Public  property,  reservation  of  exclusive  franchise  values  for  the  public, 

see  Franchises,  12. 
Rights  acquired  under  indeterminate  permit,  see  Indeterminate  Per- 
mit, 6. 

PROPORTIONAL  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  177. 

Unjustly    discriminatory    proportional    rate    ordered    discontinued,    see 
Discrimination,  80. 

PRORATING  OF  EXPENSES. 

See  Accounting,  34,  62,  68,  88,  137,  150. 

PROTECTED  WIRES. 

Permissible  to  collect  special  installation  charge  for  protected  telephone 
wires,  see  Rates — Telephone,  44. 


Public  Hearing  177 


PUBLIC  CONVENIENCE  AND  COMFORT. 

Stopping  an  interstate  train  for  public  convenience  and  comfort  at  a 
station  adequately  served  by  other  trains,  would  be  undue  inter- 
ference with  interstate  commerce,  see  Train  Service,  20. 

PUBLIC  CONVENIENCE  AND  NECESSITY. 

See  also  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 

Railroads,  equipment  should  be  operated  so  long  as  public  convenience 

and  necessity  demand  its  use,  see  Warehouses,  3. 
Public  convenience  and  necessity  of  construction  of  railroad  crossing, 
see  Railroads,  12. 
of  union  station,  see  Station  Facilities,  38-39. 
Telephone  utilities,  changing  of  toll  station  into  a  rural  station,  public 
convenience  and  necessity  of,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  12. 
establishment  of  checking  station,  public  convenience  and  necessity 

of,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  5. 
extension  of  lines,  public  convenience  and  necessity  of,  see  Telephone 

Utilities,  23. 
physical  connection,  public  convenience  and  necessity  of,  see  Tele- 
phone Utilities,  37. 
Track   connections,   public   convenience   and   necessity   of,   see  Switch 
Connections,  14-18. 

Definition  of. 

1.  The  term  "public  convenience  and  necessity"  is  indeterminate. 
It  is  usually  found  in  statutes  requiring  some  act  to  be  performed  or 
creating  some  new  public  obhgation  not  imposed  by  the  common  law, 
which  interferes  with  private  rights.  As  a  justification  for  such  inter- 
ference there  must  be  a  public  exigency  demanding  it,  which  is  always  a 
question  of  fact  depending  upon  a  variety  of  considerations.  Winter  v. 
La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  748,  756. 

2.  In  the  case  Winter  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  748, 
it  was  stated,  in  substance,  that  to  justify  the  public  obligation  usually 
imposed  by  "public  convenience  and  necessity"  there  must  be  present 
some  imperative  public  exigency.  It  is  inevitable  in  such  a  situation 
as  that  at  Janesville  that  the  aggregate  loss  of  time,  inconvenience  and 
annoyance  through  the  absence  of  such  physical  connection  as  is  here 
requested  must  be  great,  and  the  conclusion  is  equally  inevitable  that 
a  public  exigency  demands  physical  connection.  McGowan  v.  Rock 
County  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  529,  537. 

PUBLIC  CORPORATIONS. 

See  Cities;  Municipalities;  Towns;  Villages. 

PUBLIC  HEARING 

Commission  not  required  to  hold  public  hearing  in  dealers'  license  cases, 
see  License,  1. 


178        '  Public  Nuisance 


PUBLIC  NUISANCE. 

Water  power  dams,   when   considered   a  public   nuisance,   see  Water 
Powers,  1. 

PUBLIC  POLICY. 

Contracts  due  to  monopoly  conditions,  may  be  contrary  to  public  policy, 

see  Contracts,  7. 
Contracts  for  public  utility  service,  under  what  conditions  they  may  be 

declared  void  as  against  public  policy,  see  Rates — Electric,  4. 
Public  policy  with  respect  to  prevention  of  monopoly  of  natural  resource 

as   element   considered,  in   making  railroad   rates,   see  Rates — - 

Railroad,  144. 
as  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates, 
see  Rates — Railroad,  190. 
Rate  wars  between  competing  utilities  contrary  to  public  policy,   see 

Rates — Electric,  61. 

PUBLIC  SERVICE  CONTRACTS. 

Waiver  of  right  to  damages  under  public  service  contracts,  see  Con- 
tracts, 8. 

PUBLIC  SERVICE  CORPORATIONS. 

See  also  Electric  Utilities;  Gas  Utilities;  Heating  Utilities; 
Interurban  Railways;  Railroads;  Street  Railways;  Telephone 
Utilities;  Toll  Bridges;  Water  Utilities. 

CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  IN  GENERAL. 

Supervision  by  municipal  councils. 

1.  The  foregoing  statutes,  and  others  to  which  no  reference  is  made, 
clearly  indicate  that  the  pohcy  of  the  state  is  to  give  cities  as  ample 
control  of  the  physical  properties  and  operations  of  pubUc  service  cor- 
porations within  their  corporate  limits  as  is  consistent  with  the  system 
of  state  supervision  and  control  of  such  corporations  provided  by  statute. 
Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  aL,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  297. 

OPERATION. 

Requirement  as  to  service  and  facilities. 

2.  It  is  a  well  established  rule  that  public  service  corporations  must 
provide  reasonably  adequate  service.  The  Pubhc  Utilities  Law  expressly 
requires  this.  Fesenfeld  Sc  Barber  et  aL  v,  Mazomanie  Tel.  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  514,  516. 


Public  Utilities. — In  general  179 


PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

See    also    Electric    Utilities;    Gas    Utilities;    Heating    Utilities; 
Telephone  Utilities;  Toll  Bridges;  Water  Utilities. 

Investments,  safety  of  public  utility  investments  under  public  utility 
legislation,  see  Investments,  1. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 
II.  CONTROL  AND  REGULATION. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

Definition  of  public  utility. 

1.  Section  1  (laws  of  1907,  ch.  499)  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law, 
defines  the  term  "public  utiUty"  as  meaning  and  embracing  "  *  *  * 
every  corporation,  company,  individual,  association  of  individuals,  *  *  * 
and  every  town,  village,  or  city  that  now  or  hereafter  may  own,  operate, 
manage  or  control  any  plant  or  equipment  or  any  part  of  a  plant  or' 
equipment  within  the  state,  for  the  conveyance  of  telephone  messages 
or  for  the  production,  transmission,  delivery  or  furnishing  of  heat,  light, 
water  or  power  either  directly  or  indirectly  to  or  for  the  public."  In  re 
Invest.  Hudson  Water  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  138,  140. 

Duty  to  furnish  service  and  facilities. 

2.  A  telephone  company  can  not  be  likened  indiscriminately  to  other 
members  of  the  community  who  make  it  their  business  to  sell  their  com- 
modities or  their  services  to  the  public.  A  telephone  company  is  a  public 
servant,  and  is  not  only  privileged  to  serve,  but  also  obligated  to  serve. 
It  must  extend  its  facilities  to  all  persons  so  situated  as  to  entitle  them  to 
service.  It  may  not  withhold  its  service  except  for  extraordinary  causes.* 
It  occupies  a  position  of  public  responsibility  in  the  community.  In  re 
Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  534,  546. 

3.  The  duty  of  a  utility  is  to  serve  without  discrimination,  under 
reasonable  rules  and  regulations,  all  people  desiring  service  who  subscribe 
to  and  abide  by  such  regulations.  The  call  for  service,  though  coming  from 
an  individual,  partakes  strongly  of  the  character  of  a  public  demand.  In 
re  Refusal  Oconto  Rural  Tel.  Co.  to  Extend  Service,  1914,  15  R.  G.  277,  279. 

4.  To  fulfill  its  public  duty,  a  public  service  corporation  must  at  all 
times  keep  and  maintain  its  plant  in  a  proper  state  of  repair  and  in  an 
efficient  operating  condition,  adopt  new  inventions  as  they  arise,  make 
extensions  and  improvements  of  its  plant  when  necessary  and  required  for 
the  convenience  of  the  public,  and  continue  its  services  without  cessation 
whether  profitable  or  unprofitable.  Behrend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
150,  155. 

Investments — Action  of  Commission  with  respect  to, 

5.  The  Commission  is  thoroughly  convinced  that  investments  in 
public  utility  enterprises  should  be  so  fairly  dealt  with  that  men  possessed 
of  means  wherewith  to  construct  and  operate  utilities  will,  in  the  future. 


180 Public  Utilities. — In  general 

find  an  attractive  field  in  the  state  of  Wisconsin.  It  would  be  short- 
eighted  policy  on  the  part  of  the  Commission  to  take  any  action  which 
would  deter  investors  residing  within  or  without  the  state  from  engaging 
in  the  utility  business  in  this  state.  If  investors  were  to  be  deterred  for 
one  reason  or  another  from  continuing  to  make  these  investments,  the 
public  would  unquestionably  suffer,  and  whatever  action  this  Commission 
takes,  must  be  taken  with  due  regard  to  the  interests  of  both  investors 
and  the  public.    Fullmer  v.  Wausau  Street  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  520,  532. 

6.  It  devolves  upon  the  Commission  to  regard  the  demand  for  a 
reasonable  return  upon  actual  investment  and  for  services  rendered  on 
the  part  of  the  utility,  as  fundamental  in  establishing  and  maintaining 
adequate  service  for  the  community — on  the  assumption,  always,  that 
ordinary  intelligence  and  honesty  have  been  shown  in  establishing  the 
utility.  More  than  the  welfare  of  any  given  utility  or  community  under 
consideration  is  involved  in  this.  If  the  principle  were  unwisely  disre- 
garded in  any  one  case,  it  would  be  an  effectual  bar  to  the  securing  of  funds 
to  develop  new  utilities  or  improve  existing  ones  throughout  the  entire 
state.    In  re  AppL  Darlington  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  344,  346. 

'II.  CONTROL    AND    REGULATION    OF    PUBLIC    UTILITIES. 

Collateral  undertaking  when  not  affecting  prejudicially  the  rea- 
sonable performance  of  its  duties  to  the  public. 

7.  As  long  as  the  primary  purposes  of  a  public  utility  are  carried  out 
to  the  reasonable  satisfaction  of  the  public,  the  use  of  its  property  for  inci- 
dental purposes,  which,  do  not  impair  the  efficiency  or  adequacy  of  the 
public  service  it  has  undertaken,  is  a  matter. in  which  the  general  public 
is  not  concerned.  It  is  only  when  the  rights  of  the  latter  in  matters  per- 
taining to  the  public  calling  of  such  a  concern  are  invaded  that  a  cause 
exists  for  intervention  on  the  part  of  the  public  authorities  for  the  purpose 
of  enforcing  such  rights  and  compelling  the  full  and  impartial  performance 
of  public  functions.  Fond  du  Lac  Business  Men's  Assn.  et  al.  v.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  340,  353. 

Legislative  regulation  through  coniniissions. 

8.  Legislative  regulation  of  public  utilities  through  commission  may, 
in  some  respects,  be  detrimental  to  operators  who  endeavor  to  evade  their 
obligations  under  the  common  law  and  who  try  to  profit  by  the  manipula- 
tion of  capital  issues  rather  than  through  legitimate,  effective  and  economi- 
cal operation  of  their  plants.  It  is  also  possible  that  such  regulation  may 
prove  unsatisfactory  when  ineffectual  or  misdirected,  and  until  it  has  been 
fully  tried  out  and  become  more  generally  understood.  But  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  such  regulation  can  result  in  permanent  injury  to  the  great 
mass  of  the  investors  and  to  the  utilities  themselves,  if  honestly  applied 
and  administered  with  ordinary  care  and  efficiency  along  the  lines  of  and 
in  the  spirit  of  such  laws  as  those  which  have  been  enacted  in  this  state. 
State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501, 
631. 


Public  Utilities. — Control  and  regulation  of         181 


Power  of  Commission  to  regulate  public  utilities — Limitations   of 
power. 

9.  A  careful  reading  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law  will  disclose  that  the 
objective  point  in  the  legislative  mind  was  the  regulation  of  those  affairs 
of  public  utilities  by  public  authority  which  pertain  to  and  are  involved 
in  the  discharge  of  their  obligations  to  the  public.  It  was  not  the  intention 
to  confer  upon  the  tribunal  charged  with  the  duty  of  supervision,  the 
general  management  of  the  business  of  such  concerns.  The  function  of 
the  Commission  is,  therefore,  naturally  limited  in  its  scope  to  the  execution 
of  the  primary  purposes  of  the  enactment.  Fond  da  Lac  Business  Men^s 
Assn.  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  340,  349. 

What  are  public  utilities — Electric  light  company  determined  to 
be  public  utility. 

10.  The  city  of  Darlington  opposes  the  application  for  an  increase  in 
rates  in  the  instant  case  upon  the  ground,  among  others,  that  the  applicant 
is  not  a  public  utility.  Held:  The  applicant  is  a  public  utility  and  subject 
to  the  provisions  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law.  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El. 
Lt.  <Sc  W,  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  344,  349. 

■     Electric  power  company  declared  to  be  a  public  utility, 

11.  The  applicant  was  organized  as  a  public  utility,  its  letterheads 
from  the  first  advertising  that  it  would  sell  current  up  to  its  capacity  to  any 
customer.  The  company  was  given  the  right  in  its  charter  to  use  the 
streets  for  poles  and  wires,  and  did  so  use  them,  being  a  holder  of  a  fran- 
chise from  the  city  authorizing  such  use.  Its  articles  of  incorporation 
give  as  one  of  its  purposes  to  produce  and  convey  electric  power  to  any 
place  where  it  may  be  desired  and  to  engage  in  the  business  of  electric 
lighting.  The  entire  matter  at  present  is  specifically  covered  by  sec. 
1797/77-1  of  the  statutes.  Held:  That  sec.  1797/77-1  of  the  statutes  makes 
the  applicant  a  public  utility  at  present,  and  that  the  applicant  was  also 
a  public  utility  within  the  meaning  of  the  law  when  the  contracts  involved 
were  entered  into  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  statute  in  question.  In 
re  Appl.  Rhinelander  Power  Co.  to  Amend  its  Rates,  1915,  15  R.  C.  783, 
786-792.        . 

:     Telephone  company  declared  to  be  a  public  utility. 

12.  The  contention  of  the  West  Kewaunee  &  Western  Tel.  Co.  that 
it  is  not  a  public  utility,  for  the  reason  that  all  its' subscribers  are  stock- 
holders, cannot  be  granted  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  company  uses  the 
highways  of  the  state  for  its  pole  and  wire  lines  and  the  further  fact  that 
the  company  apparently  holds  itself  out  as  giving  a  public  telephone  serv- 
ice as  distinguished  from  a  purely  private  service.  In  re  Proposed  Exten. 
West  Kewaunee  Sc  W.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  219,  223. 


182  Public  Utilities  Law. — Operation  of 


PUBLIC  UTILITIES  LAW. 


I.  OPERATION    OF  LAW. 

II.  SCOPE    AND  PURPOSE  OF  LAW. 

III.  SECTIONS    CONSTRUED. 

IV.  THEORY    WITH    RESPECT   TO    MONOPOLY. 


I.  OPERATION  OF  LAW. 

Effect  on  stability  of  investments  in  public  utility  enterprises. 

1.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe,  what  the  testimony  in  this  case 
suggests,  that  the  operation  of  the  Public  UtiUties  Law  will,  eventually, 
result  in  greater  stability  in  the  investment  in  pubHc  utiHty  enterprises, 
and  that  this  will  be  followed  by  a  relatively  lower  rate  of  interest  may 
reasonably  be  expected  from  the  nature  of  the  competitive  forces  operating 
upon  capital.  However,  until  experience  has  actually  demonstrated  it,  at 
least  on  a  limited  scale,  no  action  of  far  reaching  consequences  can  be 
prudently  and  justly  based  upon  it.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  G.  1,  63-64. 

11.  SCOPE  AND  PURPOSE  OF  LAW. 
In  general. 

2.  The  purpose  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law,  which  gives  the  Commis- 
sion authority  over  public  utilities,  is  to  insure  to  communities  as  such 
and  to  the  people  who  compose  them,  adequate  service  at  reasonable  rates 
from  those  corporations  or  individuals  whom  the  state  or  the  community 
has  by  grants  of  special  privileges  commissioned  to  perform  such  services. 
In  re  Appl.  Darlington  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  344,  345. 

Applies  alike  to  municipal  and  private  plants. 

3.  It  is  one  of  the  peculiar  and  highly  meritorious  provisions  of  the 
Utilities  Law,  that  it  applies  alike  to  municipal  and  private  plants.  (Wis. 
Statutes,  sec.  1797m-l.)  In  re  Invest.  Hudson  Water  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  C. 
138,  140. 

4.  The  laws  of  Wisconsin  place  a  municipality  which  owns  and  oper- 
ates a  public  utility  under  the  same  obligations  as  any  other  owner  of  a 
public  utility  to  render  reasonably  adequate  service,  to  charge  reasonable 
and  just  rates,  and  to  charge  no  rates  which  are  unjustly  discriminatory. 
In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  266. 

Regulation  limited  to  obligations  of  public  utilities  to  the  public. 

5.  A  careful  reading  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law  will  disclose  that  the 
objective  point  in  the  legislative  mind  was  the  regulation  of  those  affairs 
of  public  utilities  by  public  authority  which  pertain  to  and  are  involved 
in  the  discharge  of  their  obligations  to  the  public.  It  was  not  the  intention 
to  confer  upon  the  tribunal  charged  with  the  duty  of  supervision,  the 
general  management  of  the  business  of  such  concerns.  The  function  of 
the  Commission  is,  therefore,  naturally  limited  in  its  scope  to  the  execution 


Public  Utilities  Law. — Scope  and  purpose  of 183 

of  the  primary  purposes  of  the  enactment.    Fond  du  Lac  Business  Men's 
Assn.  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  340,  349. 

With  respect  to  duplication  of  telephone  lines  within  the  same 
territory. 

6.  Unnecessary  dupHcation  of  telephone  Hnes  within  the  same  terri- 
tory was  sought  to  be  avoided  when  ch.  610  of  the  laws  of  1913  (sec.  1797m- 
74  of  the  statutes)  was  enacted.  In  re  Proposed  Exten.  Owen  Tel.  Co., 
1914,  13  R.  G.  630,  631;  In  re  Proposed  Exten.  Wis.  Tel  Co.,  1914,  14 
R.  C.  396,  398. 

With  respect  to  extension  of  telephone  lines. 

7.  The  only  action  required  of  this  Commission  by  the  law  in  cases 
involving  the  duplication  of  telephone  lines  within  the  same  territory  by 
the  extension  of  new  lines,  is  a  finding  that  public  convenience  and  neces- 
sity do  not  require  the  proposed  extension.  Where  the  Commission  does 
not  make  such  a  finding,  the  statute  itself  operates  to  authorize  the  exten- 
sion.   In  re  Proposed  Exten.  Owen  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  630,  631. 

8.  We  are  not  unmindful  of  the  evasion  of  the  law  that  might  be 
accomplished  by  telephone  companies  that  construct  toll  lines  and  then 
request  that  they  be  permitted  to  convert  them  into  local  lines.  The 
Commission  wall,  however,  inquire  carefully  into  the  circumstances  sur- 
rounding any  application  of  that  nature  and  it  is  not  intended  that  the 
effect  of  this  decision  shall  be  to  give  the  sanction  of  the  Commission  gener- 
ally to  such  conversions.  In  re  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  Toll  Station  at  Eagle  Point, 
1914,  15  R.  C.  454,  458. 

With  respect  to  municipal  acquisition.  , 

9.  The  law  only  imposes  upon  the  municipality  the  obligation  of 
purchasing  such  property  as  is  both  actually  used  and  .actually  useful  for 
the  convenience  of  the  public.  (Wis.  Statutes,  sec.  1797m-82.)  In  re 
Cashton  LI.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  80. 

With  respect  to  the  property  which  must  be  purchased  in  case  of 
municipal  acquisition. 

10.  It  is  not  necessarily  all  the  property  that  is  actually  used  for  the 
convenience  of  the  public  that  a  municipality  is  required  to  purchase, 
when  it  elects  to  purchase,  but  only  the  ''property  actually  used  and  useful 
for  the  convenience  of  the  public."  Equity  is  the  spirit  of  the  law.  It 
would  not  be  permissible  for  a  public  utility  to  so  swell  its  corporate 
assets  as  to  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  act.  Any  such  attempt  on  the  part 
of  a  public  service  corporation  would  be  an  intolerable  fraud  on  the  public, 
and  result  futilely.     In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Cashton,  1908,  2  R.  C.  677,  691. 

With  respect  as  to  whether  the  right  to  do  a  public  utility  business 
is  contingent  upon  the  ownership  of  the  physical   property. 

11.  In  Wisconsin,  the  distinction  between  franchise  value  and  physi- 
cal items  of  property  was  never  entered  into  by  the  legislature,  and  the 
supreme  court,  while  recognizing  the  right  of  the  legislature  to  so  distin- 
guish, has  always  held  that  the  physical  and  intangible  items  of  property. 


184         Public  Utilities  Law. — Scope  and  purpose  of 

should  be  considered  as  an  entirety.  This  matter  has  been  brought  be- 
fore the  court  in  taxation  cases  and  has  been  uniformly  decided  in  the 
manner  indicated  above.  See  State  ex  rel.  v.  Milwaukee  St.  R.  Co.  v. 
Anderson,  90  Wis.  550;  State  ex  rel.  Ashland  Water  Co.  v.  Wharton,  115 
Wis.  457;  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  State,  128  Wis.  553;  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co. 
V.  Fond  du  Lac,  82  Wis.  322;  Monroe  Welter  Works  Co.  v.  Monroe,  110 
Wis.  11;  Yellow  River  Imp.  Co.  v.  Wood  Co.  and  another,  81  Wis.  554, 
Under  the  Public  Utilities  Law  a  municipality  can  only  terminate  a  fran- 
chise or  indeterminate  permit  when  it  determines  to  acquire  the  plant  of 
the  public  utility  and  then  it  must  pay  just  compensation  for  the  property 
as  a  going  concern.  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  626,  628,  629,  631. 

III.     SECTIONS  CONSTRUED. 

Sec.  1778,  telephone  companies,  right  to  conduct  and  maintain  lines  on 
public  road  or  highway  subject  to  reasonable  regulation  by  mu- 
nicipahty.     Wzs.  Te/.  Co.  y.  C%o/ La  Crosse,  1911,  7  R.  C.  435,  445. 

Sec.  1791-a,  telephone  utilities,  requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities. 
In  re  Use  of  Silent  Numbers  by  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  587, 
592. 

Sec.  1797/rj-l,  what  are  public  utilities,  electric  power  company  declared 
to  be  public  utility.  In  re  Appl.  Rhinelander  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C. 
783,  786. 

Sec.  1797/77-1,  subd.  5,  indeterminate  permit  defined.  In  re  Appleton 
Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  97.  118. 

Sec.  1797/77-4,  physical  connection,  constitutionality  of  statute.  McGowan 
V.  Rock  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  C.  529,  533;  15  R  C. 
378,  379. 

Sec.  1797/77-74,  nature  of  franchise.  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  291,  293. 

Sec.  1797/77-76,  municipal  acquisition,  municipahty  cannot  acquire  busi- 
ness of  existing  utility  without  also  acquiring  the  plant.  City  of 
Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  626. 

Sec.  \l%lm-ll  and  sec.  1797/n-78,  indeterminate  permit,  effect  of  surren- 
dering franchise  and  receiving  in  lieu  thereof  an  indeterminate  per- 
mit.    City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  305. 

Sec.  1797/77-78,  by  acceptance  of  indeterminate  permit  a  utility  waives 
the  right  to  have  established  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury,  the  necessity 
of  the  taking  over  of  its  property  by  the  municipality.  In  re  Pur- 
chase Grand  Rapids  El.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  258,  265. 

Sec.  1797/77-79,  indeterminate  permit,  operation  under  permit,  continuous 
operation.  In  re  Appl.  Interstate  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C. 
603,  611. 

Sec.  1797/77-80,  municipal  acquisition  of  public  utility,  regularity  of  pro- 
cedure.    In  re  Racine  Water  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  543,  547. 

Sec.  1797/77-81,  municipal  acquisition  of  public  utility,  regularity  of  pro- 
cedure, submission  of  question  to  voters.  In  re  Racine  Water  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  C.  543,  547. 


Publicaiion  of  Rate  Schedules 185 

Sec.  1797/71-81,  municipal  acquisition  of  public  utilities,  time  of  giving 
notice  to  utility  or  the  Commission.  In  re  Purchase  Grand  Rapids 
El  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  258,  263. 

Sec.  1797/72-82,  compensation  for  property  of  [)ublic  utilities  in  case  of 
municipal  acquisition,  diminution  of  value  of  remaining  property 
on  account  of  severance  of  any  portion  may  be  considered  in  deter- 
mining just  compensation.  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908, 
3R.C.  67,  80-81. 

Sec.  1797/77-87,  municipal  ordinance  afTecting  rates  or  service  of  public 
utility,  reasonableness  of  ordinance  within  purview  of  Public  Utili- 
ties Law,  review  by  Commission.  In  re  Appl.  Madison  Gas  &  El. 
Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  293,  302. 

Sec.  1797/77-90,  allowance  to  subscriber  of  a  telephone  utility  on  account 
of  ownership  of  instrument  or  facility,  reasonable  rental  permitted. 
In  re  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  98,  103-104. 

Sec.  1797/n-90,  deduction  from  rates  to  offset  indebtedness  of  utility  to 
subscriber,  prohibited.  In  re  Refusal  Farmers^  Union  Tel.  Co.  to 
Furnish  Service,  1913,  13  R.  C.  399,  400. 

Sec.  1797/77-90,  duty  of  electric  utility  to  provide  transformers  and  light- 
ning arresters.  In  re  Refusal  of  Service  by  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  &  P. 
Co.,  1915,  15  R.C.  612,  614. 

Sec.  1797/n-90,  rebates  or  concessions,  allowance  to  consumer  of  electric 
utility  on  account  of  ownership  of  instrument  or  facility  prohibited. 
In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  Sz  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  52,  54. 

Sec.  1797/n-91,  exceptions  respecting  public  utility  contracts  do  not  apply 
to  indefinite  subscription  agreements.  In  re  Construction  of  Sec. 
1797m-91,  Ch.  499,  Laws  1907,  1907,  2  R.  C.  113. 

Sec.  1797/77-91,  legality  of  rates  established  by  contracts  entered  into  prior 
to  April  1,  1907.  In  re  Appl.  Rhinelander  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C. 
783,  813-814. 

Sec.  1797/77-108,  municipal  acquisition  of  public  utility,  provision  for 
compensation.     In  re  Racine  Water  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  543,  552. 


IV.     THEORY  WITH  RESPECT  TO  MONOPOLY. 

Theory  of  law  as  to  monopolistic  character  of  utility  enterprises. 

1.  It  is  well  understood  that  the  theory  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law 
is,  that  utility  enterprises  are  generally  monopolistic  in  their  character. 
^This  theory  was  not  extended  to  include  telephone  companies.  These 
alone  are  left  in  a  class  by  themselves,  supposed  to  be  governed  by  the 
ordinary  laws  of  competition.  Payne  et  at.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
1.  60. 


1  For  effect  of  Anti-duplication   Law   (ch.  610,   1913),  ;jec  Telephone    Util- 
ities, 9-25. 

PUBLICATION  OF  RATE  SCHEDULES. 

See  Schedules  or  Tariffs;  Schedules  for  Utilities. 


186  Published  Rate 


PUBLISHED  RATE. 

Definition  of  published  railroad  rate,  see  Rates — Railroad,  178. 
Departure  from  published  rate  prohibited,  see  Schedules  for  Utilities, 
2-4;  Schedules  or  Tariffs,  8-10. 

PULP. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  pulp,  see  Rates — Railroad,  274. 

PULP  WOOD. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  pulp  wood,  see  Rates — Railroad,  301. 

PUMPAGE. 

Pumpage  lost  and  unaccounted  for,  see  Rates — Water,  47. 

PUMPING  RATES. 

Electric  rates  for  municipal  pumping,  see  Rates — Electric,  60, 

PUMP  JACKS. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

PURPOSE. 

Purpose  for  which  article  is  intended,  as  element  considered  in  making 
railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  145. 
as  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates, 
seeRATEs— Railroad,  191. 
Right  of  common  carriers  to  designate  purpose  for  which  their  tracks 
shall  be  used,  see  Railroads,  101, 

QUALITY  OF  SERVICE. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
146. 

RADIATION. 

Formula  for  computing  radiation,  see  Rates — Heating,  1. 

RADIUS  CHARGE. 

Excess  radius  charge  for  telephones,  see  Rates — Telephone,  15. 


Railroad  Comm. — Authority  of,  in  awarding  reparation      187 


RAILROAD. 

Definition  of  term  "railroad"  and  its  application  to  street  railways,  see 
Street  Railways,  1,  7. 

RAILROAD  COMMISSION. 

Public  utility  investments,  action  of  Commission  with  respect  to,  see 
Public  Utilities,  5-6. 


I.     AUTHORITY  OF  COMMISSION  IN  AWARDING  REPARATION. 
II.     DECISIONS    OR  ORDERS  OF  COMMISSION. 

III.  DUTY    OF    COMMISSION. 

IV.  EVIDENCE. 

V.     INVESTIGATION    BY    COMMISSION. 
VI.     JURISDICTION    OF    COMMISSION. 
VII.     ORDERS    OF    COMMISSION. 
VIII.     POWER    OF    COMMISSION. 


I.  AUTHORITY  OF  COMMISSION  IN  AWARDING  REPARATION. 

Claims  accrued  prior  to  passage  of  reparation  law. 

1.  Prior  to  the  enactment  of  ch.  271,  laws  of  1909,  the  Commission 
was  without  authority  to  authorize  reparation  for  claims  that  had  accrued 
prior  to  the  act  providing  that  reparation  might  be  made  in  certain 
instances.  Chapter  271  provided  for  a  period  of  thirty  days  in  which 
claims  of  this  character  could  be  submitted  to  the  Commission  for  in- 
vestigation, and  could  be  allowed  if  the  Commission  should  determine 
that  the  charges  exacted  were  either  erroneous,  unusual  or  exorbitant. 
Ahnapee  Veneer  cfc  Seating  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
106,  108;  Ahnapee  Veneer  &  Seating  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  109,  110. 

Commission  to  determine  reasonable  rate. 

2.  In  considering  whether  reparation  may  be  made  in  any  particular 
case,  the  Commission  is  confined  to  determining  whether  the  schedule 
rate  exacted  is  exorbitant  or  unusual,  and  if  it  finds  such  rate  either 
excessive  or  unusual,  it  must  ascertain  what  the  reasonable  rate  would 
have  been,  and  the  latter  rate  then  not  only  determines  the  basis  of  the 
award,  but  indicates  the  rate  to  be  established  and  applied  in  the  future. 
Joannes  Bros.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  422,  424;  Mace 
Lime  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  590,  592;  Menasha  Paper  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  620,  622. 

Complaint  must  be  lodged  by  person  aggrieved. 

3.  The  Commission  is  without  power  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of 
complaints  against  charges  or  to  authorize  a  refund  of  any  part  thereof, 
unless  the  complaint  be  lodged  by  the  person  aggrieved.  Wausau 
Advancement  Ass' n.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  772,  774. 


188     Railroad  Comm. — Authority  of,  in  awarding  reparation 

Expenses  incurred  on  account  of  failure  of  carrier  to  keep  sched- 
ules for  connections. 

4.  The  Commission  has  no  authority  under  the  law  to  order  reparation 
for  expenses  incurred  on  account  of  failure  of  the  carrier  to  keep  schedules 
for  connections.     Burrill  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  319,  321. 

Finding  of  specific  amount  of  refund  authorized. 

5.  It  is  clearly  implied  in  the  statutes  (sec.  1797-37/n)  that  the  Com- 
mission has  authority  to  make  a  finding  of  the  specific  amount  of  refund 
authorized.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1912,  10  R.  C.  632,  633,  634. 

Limitation  of  statute. 

6.  The  Commission  is  without  authority  to  authorize  a  refund  as  to 
shipments  upon  which  the  statute  of  limitations  has  run.  (Wis.  Statutes, 
sec.  1797-37m.)  Pabst  Brewing  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
173,  174. 

7.  The  making  of  an  informal  complaint  prior  to  the  expiration  of 
the  six  months  limitation  gives  the  Commission  jurisdiction  even  though 
formal  complaint  was  not  filed  until  after  the  expiration  of  the  statutory 
time  limit.  Duluth-Superior  Milling  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
459,  462. 

8.  Under  the  provisions  of  sec.  1797-37/n  (sec.  8,  ch.  582,  laws  of 
1907)  petitions  for  refund  must  be  filed  within  six  months  after  delivery 
of  shipment  in  order  to  give  the  Commission  jurisdiction.  Menasha 
Paper  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  300,  301;  Connor  Land  &  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  iSc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  778. 

9.  Under  the  statute,  sec,  1797-37/n,  the  Commission  is  without 
authority  to  award  reparation  for  any  shipment  which  moved  more  than 
one  year  prior  to  the  filing  of  the  complaint.  New  Richmond  Roller 
Mills  Co.  V.  F.  cfc  N.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  272,  273;  Badger 
Basket  <Sc  Veneer  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  492, 
494,  , 

10.  The  shipments  on  which  a  refund  is  asked  were  delivered  at 
destination  more  than  one  year  prior  to  the  filing  of  the  claim  with  the 
Commission.  The  claim  would  therefore  have  been  barred  under  sec, 
1797-37/n,  except  for  the  fact  that  the  recent  legislature  has  by  amendment 
enlarged  the  time  of  fifing  claims  to  two  years.  (Ch,  66,  laws  of  1913,) 
At  the  time  of  the  enlargement  of  the  statute  the  bar  had  not  run  upon 
the  shipments  in  question,  and  hence  reparation  may  be  awarded,  Mayer 
V.  C.  &  N:  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  328,  329-330;  Northern  Wood  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  706.  707. 

Reduction  of  rate  not  ground  for  refund. 

11.  It  is  only  when  the  Commission  finds  that  the  rate  is  unusual, 
exorbitant,  illegal  or  erroneous  that  reparation  may  be  awarded.  The 
mere  fact  that  a  rate  has  been  reduced  by  the  Commission  is  not  sufficient 
ground  in  itself  for  authorizing  refunds,  Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C,  589;  Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  & 
0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  700;  Merrill  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 


Railroad  Commission. — Duty  of 189 

R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54;  Connor  Land  <&  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  C.  774;  Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
624,  626,  627. 

Refunds  from  erroneous  and  illegal  charges. 

12.  Before  sec.  1797-37m  (laws  1907,  ch.  582)  of  the  Wisconsin 
Stats,  was  amended  by  ch.  136  of  the  laws  of  1909,  the  Railroad  Commis- 
sion could  only  authorize  refunds  in  cases  where  the  charges  exacted 
were  in  accordance  with  the  duly  published  and  legal  rates  in  force,  and 
where  they  were  found  upon  complaint  of  a  shipper  to  have  been  either 
unusual  or  exorbitant.  The  addition  of  the  words  erroneous  and  illegal 
broadened  the  scope  of  the  statute  so  as  to  include  all  charges,  whether 
in  conformity  with  the  legal  tariffs  or  otherwise.  Kiel  Woodenware  Co. 
u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  597.  599-600. 

Remedy  to  be  pursued  as  prescribed  by  statute. 

13.  Ah  injured  shipper,  in  order  to  obtain  relief  in  a  reparation  case, 
must  pursue  his  remedy  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  statute.  He  is 
not  permitted  to  sleep  upon  his  rights  until  his  remedy  is  barred,  and  then 
seek  to  enforce  the  same.  Pulpwood  Co.  of  Appleton  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  175,  177.  * 

Shipper  cannot  be  relieved  from  payment  of  lawful  rates. 

14.  The  Commission  cannot  relieve  a  shipper  from  the  payment  of 
the  lawful  established  tariff  charges.  To  do  so  would  be  the  equivalent 
of  suspending  the  operation  of  the  statute,  which  is  not  within  the  power 
of  the  Commission.  It  only  has  authority  to  authorize  refunds  when  the 
payments  made  are  found  to  be  exorbitant,  unusual,  illegal  or  erroneous. 
Paine  Lbr.  Co.  Ltd.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  633.  634. 

II.  DECISIONS  OR  ORDERS  OF  COMMISSION. 
» 

Orders  only  in  formal  proceedings. 

15.  Under  both  the  law  and  the  practice  no  decisions  are  issued  or 
orders  made  by  this  Commission  except  in  formal  proceedings.  In  re 
Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  71,  72. 

III.  DUTY  OF  COMMISSION. 

Allowance  for  depreciation  in  passing  upon  rate  schedules. 

16.  It  is  made  obligatory  upon  the  Commission  to  allow  for  deprecia- 
tion in  passing  upon  the  rate  schedules  of  public  utilities.  "The  Com- 
mission shall  provide  for  such  depreciation  in  fixing  the  rates,  tolls,  and 
charges  to  be  paid  by  the  public."  Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  1797m-15,  subd.  3. 
In  re  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  534,  546. 

Apportionment  of  expenses  for  railroad  crossings. 

17.  The  statute  provides  that  the  Commission  shall  apportion  the 
cost  and  expense  of  a  new  crossing  between  the  railway  company  and  the 
town.     (Wis.  Stat.,  sec.  1797-12e.)     Town  of  Gillelt  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1912.  9  R.  C.  535.  537. 


190    Railroad  Commission. — Duty  of 

Determination  of  just  compensation  in  case  of  municipal  acquisi- 
tion. 

18.  The  statute  provides  that  the  Commission  shall  "fix  and  deter- 
mine *  *  *  just  compensation  to  be  paid  for  the  taking  of  the  property 
of  such  public  utility  actually  used  and  useful  for  the  convenience  of  the 
public  and  all  other  terms  and  all  conditions  of  sale  and  purchase  which 
it  shall  ascertain  to  be  reasonable."  (Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  17977n-82.)  In  re 
Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908.  3  R.  G.  67,  80. 

Determination  of  mode  and  manner  of  a  proposed  railroad  cross- 
ing. 

19.  Sec.  1797-12e  imposes  upon  the  Commission  the  duty,  upon 
petition,  of  determining  the  mode  and  manner  of  a  proposed  crossing  in 
the  interest  of  public  safety,  and  of  apportioning 'the  cost  of  such  crossing 
between  the  railway  company  and  the  municipality  in  interest.  Town 
of  Elcho  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  796,  800-801. 

Enforcement  of  laws  relating  to  railroads. 

20.  Sec.  1797-31  of  the  statutes  imposes  upon  the  Commission  the 
duty  of  enforcing  all  laws  relating  to  railroads.  Town  of  Rhine  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5.  R.  C.  184,  188. 

Enforcement  of  Public  Utilities  Law. 

21.  Sec.  1797/77-102  says,  speaking  of  the  Commission,  "It  shall  be 
its  duty  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  sees.  1797m-l  to  1797m-109."  In  re 
Proposed  Exten.  Grange  Hall  Farmers  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  11,  16. 

Enforcement  of  reasonably  adequate  service  and  facilities. 

22.  Sec.  1797-14  provides  that  the  Railroad  Commission  shall  make 
an  order  fixing  regulations,  etc.,  when  it  determines  that  a  service  is 
unreasonable.     Perry  v.  A.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  223,  228. 

23.  The  duty  of  furnishing  reasonably  adequate  service  and  facilities 
for  the  convenience  of  the  public  is  imposed  upon  street  railway  corpora- 
tions by  law,  and  in  case  of  any  neglect  or  failure  in  the  performance  of 
such  duty,  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  Commission  to  enforce  the  same  by 
order  in  a  proper  proceeding  brought  for  that  purpose.  Lang  et  al.  v. 
City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  296. 

24.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Commission  to  ascertain  from  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances  presented  in  any  case  the  reasonableness  of  any  rule  or 
regulation  respecting  service  and,  if  it  shall  determine  that  such  rule  or 
regulation  is  unreasonable,  to  change  the  same  or  substitute  a  reasonable 
rule  or  regulation  in  place  thereof.  In  re  Use  of  Silent  Numbers  by  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  587,  593. 

Regulation  of  public  utilities.  ' 

25.  In  order  that  the  Commission  may  act  intelligently  in  the  matter 
of  regulating  public  utilities,  it  is  required  to  value  the  property  of  all 
public  utilities,  prescribe  uniform  systems  of  accounting,  fix  standards  of 
service,  establish  rules  and  regulations  and  generally  to  do  all  things 
necessary  to  advise  itself  fully  of  all  the  affairs  of  such  utilities.  Fond 
du  Lac  Business  Men's  Assn.  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  340,  349. 


Railroad  Commission. — Investigation  by 191 

26.  This  Commission,  in  passing  upon  any  utility  case,  whether  it 
be  a  petition  of  the  utiUty  for  permission  to  increase  its  charges  or  the 
complaint  of  a  private  consumer  or  a  community  that  rates  are  too  high 
or  the  service  inadequate,  must  give  a  large  share  of  attention  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  ability  of  the  utility  to  maintain  its  service.  In  re  Appl. 
Darlington  EL  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  344,  347. 

Regulation  of  rates,  service  and  facilities. 

27.  An  examination  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law  will  disclose  that  it  is 
among  the  duties  of  this  Commission  to  investigate  complaints  as  to  rates, 
services  and  facilities;  to  investigate  the  services  rendered  and  facilities 
afforded  and  to  see  to  it  that  these  are  reasonably  adequate  under  the 
circumstances;  to  discover  and  prevent  unjust  discriminations  of  all  kinds; 
and,  when  deemed  necessary,  to  prevent  injury  to  property  employed  in 
public  service  and  affected  with  public  interest,  to  temporarily  alter  and 
amend  existing  rates,  rules  and  regulations.  In  re  Invest.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <fc 
L.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541,  557. 

Requirement  of  physical  connection. 

28.  Section  1797/n-4  of  the  statutes  imposes  upon  the  Commission 
the  power  and  duty  of  requiring  physical  connection.  Hawkins  Creek  Tel. 
Co.  et  at.  V.  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  655;  661-664. 

IV.  EVIDENCE. 

Rules  of  evidence. 

29.  The  Commission  upon  assuming  jurisdiction  of  the  case  thorough- 
ly investigated  all  matters  which  might  have  any  bearing  on  the  equities 
involved.  It  did  not  deem  itself  confined  to  the  rules  of  evidence  applicable 
to  the  trial  of  causes  in  courts,  but  assumed  that  its  investigation  should 
be  made  along  the  lines  customarily  pursued  in  cases  brought  before  the 
Commission  in  the  manner  provided  by  statute.  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca 
El.  Lt.  Sz  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  9  R.  C.  310,  312-313. 

Substantial  evidence. 

30.  The  Commission,  as  is  its  custom  when  deemed  necessary  in  order 
to  arrive  at  a  full  understanding  of  the  matters  involved  in  a  case,  made  an 
independent  investigation  which  resulted  in  the  accumulation  of  a  large 
amount  of  tabulations,  correspondence,  etc.,  which  has  been  instructive 
though  not  entirely  probative.  (Int.  Com.  Comm.  v.  Louis.  &  Nash.  R.  R., 
1913,  227  U.  S.  88,  93.)  Barker  &  Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  537.  539. 

V.  INVESTIGATION  BY  COMMISSION. 

Use  of  all  the  instrumentalities  available  for  ascertaining  facts. 

31.  The  Commission  upon  assuming  jurisdiction  of  a  case  will  use  all 
the  instrumentalities  available  for  ascertaining  every  fact  bearing  directly 
or  indirectly  upon  the  issues  and  the  equities  involved  in  the  case.  In  re 
Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  9  R.  G.  310, 
312-313. 


192  Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 


VI.  JURISDICTION  OF  COMMISSION. 

How  invoked  under  Public  Utilities  Law. 

32.  It  is  only  mercantile,  agricultural  and.  manufacturing  societies, 
bodies  politic  and  municipal  corporations  that,  acting  individually,  can 
invoke  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission.  (Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  17977n-43.) 
National  Travelers'  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  678,  690. 

How  invoked  under  Railroad  Law. 

33.  Sec.  1797-12  provides  that  the  Commission  may  take  jurisdiction 
"upon  complaint  of  any  person,  firm,  corporation  or  association,  or  of  any 
mercantile,  agricultural  or  manufacturing  society,  or  of  any  body  politic 
or  municipal  organization."  Washington  Park  Adv.  Assn.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R. 
ScL.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  19,20. 

Improper  filing  of  complaint. 

34.  The  filing  of  a  complaint  against  a  public  utility  by  anyone  on 
behalf  of  a  municipality  without  being  duly  authorized  thereto  by  the  com- 
mon council  or  other  officers  invested  with  power  to  act  for  the  munici- 
pality, does  not  confer  jurisdiction  upon  the  Commission  to  act  in  the 
premises.  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Lt.  P.  cfc  Ry.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
249,  250. 

Over  abandonment  of  street  railway  line. 

35.  No  power  is  vested  in  the  Commission  to  authorize  the  abandon- 
ment of  any  line  of  street  railway,  that  matter  being  one  over  which  the 
common  council  has  exclusive  jurisdiction.  Lang  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  298;  Jones  v.  Wis.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  518, 
522;  In  re  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  713,  714. 

Over  awarding  of  reparation  on  interstate  shipments. 

36.  The  claim  for  reparation  is  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Com- 
mission, for  the  reason  that  the  shipment  was  interstate.  Hale-Mylrea  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  709,  710.     , 

Over  changing  of  route  of  railroad  company. 

37.  The  petitioner  seeks  to  base  its  application  to  this  Commission 
for  relief  upon  the  provisions  of  section  1797-58  of  the  statutes,  which 
state  that  a  railroad  company  may  alter  or  change  its  route  upon  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  its  directors  by  making  and  filing  with  this  Commission  a 
map  and  certificate  of  the  proposed  alterations,  provided  "that  such  altera- 
tion or  change  shall  not  deviate  from  the  original  route  of  such  railroad  as 
approved  by  the  Railroad  Commission  for  a  greater  distance  than  one 
mile.  *  *  *  and  also  provided  that  the  original  termini  or  route  in  any 
city  or  village  shall  not  be  changed  by  such  alteration  *  *  *  without 
the  approval  of  the  Railroad  Commission."  City  of  Ashland  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  816,  819. 

Over  claims  against  common  carrier. 

38.  Where  a  shipper  presents  a  claim  to  a  carrier  and  payment  is 
refused,  the  controversy  is  one  that  under  our  Constitution  must  be  settled 


Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 193 

by  some  appropriate  judicial  tribunal.  Judicial  powers  are  exercised  by  the 
courts  and  cannot  be  conferred  on  an  administrative  body  like  this  Com- 
mission.   Ho'dges  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  300,  302." 

Over  class  rates  for  passengers. 

39.  So  much  of  sec.  1797-22  of  the  Wiscons  law  as  prohibits  the 
making  of  any  charge  other  or  different  from  thai  contained  in  the  pub- 
lished tariffs,  is  in  substance,  taken  from  sec.  2  of  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Act.    In  re  Construction  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  of  1905,  1905,  1  R.  C.  1,  15. 

Over  connections  between  spur  track  and  main  line. 

40.  There  is  but  one  question  for  decision,  and  that  is  whether  or  not 
the  point  at  which  the  petitioner  desires  to  make  the  connection  is  within 
the  yard  limits  of  the  railway  company  at  Osceola.  The  statute  is  manda- 
tory in  its  terms,  and  if  the  point  in  question  is  within  yard  limits,  it  is 
the  absolute  duty  of  the  railway  company  to  grant  the  petitioner's  request 
regardless  of  the  physical  conditions.  Osceola  Mill  &  Elevator  Co.  v.  M. 
St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  166,  174. 

« 

Over  contractors. 

41.  The  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the  authorization  of 
contractors  to  do  work  or  over  their  dealings  with  private  parties.  Free- 
holders etc.  of  Dodge  County  v.  McWilliams,  1914,  13  R.  C.  603,  605. 

Over  contracts. 

42.  This  Commission  is  not  authorized  to  pass  upon  the  validity  of 
private  contracts  entered  into  by  public  utilities  with  their  patrons  with  a 
view  of  rendering  judgments  specifically  enforcing  the  same,  or  granting 
damages  for  their  breach  if  found  to  be  valid.  Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  154;  Lauder  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C. 
33,  35. 

43.  The  only  ground  upon  which  the  Commission  may  supervise 
contracts  entered  into  by  connecting  railways  for  the  division  of  through 
rates,  is  an  excessive  division  of  such  rates  granted  by  one  railway  to  anoth- 
er which  operates  as  a  rebate  to  a  shipper  by  reason  of  his  ownership  of 
the  road  receiving  such  exorbitant  share  of  the  through  rates,  or  which, 
for  other  reasons,  may  be  in  violation  of  law.  In  re  Appl.  Waupaca- 
Green  Bay  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  291,  295. 

44.  The  construction  of  contracts  is  not  a  matter  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Commission.  The  courts  must  be  relied  upon  for  settling 
all  disputes  arising  out  of  contractual  relations.  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland 
Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  300. 

Over  culverts. 

45.  Sec.  13886  of  the  Statutes  (ch.  159,  laws  of  1913)  makes  the  pro- 
vision, construction  and  maintenance  of  sufficient  ditches,  culverts  or 
other  outlets  under  such  circumstances  as  the  present  mandatory.  It  is 
our  judgment,  therefore,  that  full  compliance  with  the  statute  above 
quoted  required  that  the  culverts  in  question  be  lowered  so  as  to  allow  a 
free  flow  for  the  water  in  the  drainage  ditches  on  petitioner's  land. 
Williams  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  366,  369. 


194 Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 

Over  emergency  rates. 

46.  While  the  act  provides  that,  with  the  consent  of  the  railway  com- 
panies, the  Commission  can  temporarily  suspend  in  case  of  an  emergency, 
to  be  judged  of  by  the  Commission,  any  existing  passenger  rate,  still  the 
section  further  provides  that  such  an  emergency  rate  as  is  made  shall 
remain  in  force  for  such  length  of  time  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Com- 
mission. The  difficulty  in  applying  this  section  to  the  facts  laid  before 
the  Commission  in  this  matter  is  that  the  law  seems  to  contemplate  action 
by  the  Commission  in  cases  of  emergency,  and  does  not  seem  to  contem- 
plate the  making  of  permanent  emergency  rates.  In  re  Construction  of 
Ch.  362,  Laws  of  1905,  1905,  1  R.  C.  1,  6. 

Over  extension  of  service. 

47.  As  to  the  extension  of  service  requested  of  the  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  the 
Commission  is  without  jurisdiction.  The  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  is  not  obligated  to 
furnish  service  of  a  local  character  in  the  village.  On  the  contrary,  it 
could  only  make  the  extensions  in  question  after  filing  notice  with,  and 
securing  the  approval  of  the  Commission  under  ch.  610,  laws  of  1913,  and 
it  would  be  contrary  to  the  established  policy  of  the  legislature  for  the 
Commission  to  permit  or  require  the  extension  of  the  Wis.  Tel.  Co's.  lines 
into  Fall  River  for  local  service,  even  though  such  requirement  were  legally 
possible.  In  re  Invest.  People's  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  at  Fall  River,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
793,  795. 

Over  grain  elevators  owned  by  interstate  railroads. 

48.  An  elevator  situated  within  the  borders  of  a  state  is  subject  to 
reasonable  regulation  and  control  by  the  legislature  of  that  state  or  by  a 
commission  duly  authorized  to  exercise  such  control,  and  such  regulation 
and  control  is  not  an  unlawful  regulation  of  interstate  commerce.  Superior 
Board  of  Trade  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  619,  655. 

Over  industrial  tracks. 

49.  In  the  original  order  of  the  Commission  (4  R.  C.  233  as  modi- 
fied in  4  R.  C.  788  and  5  R,  C.  110),  subsequently  vacated  by  the  su- 
preme court  (144  Wis.  523),  the  Commission  acted  on  the  basis  that 
private  tracks  laid  upon  the  premises  of  a  private  company  for  the  con- 
venient operation  of  its  industries  do  not  form  a  part  of  the  railway 
company's  system.  If  we  are  in  error  in  this  and  the  Commission  has 
authority  to  thus  extend  private  tracks,  constructed  upon  the  premises  of 
industries  for  the  purpose  of  conveniently  handling  the  in  and  out  traffic 
of  such  industries,  it  is  important  that  the  matter  be  not  left  in  doubt. 
From  the  language  of  the  court  it  would  seem  that  such  authority  exists, 
but  as  we  are  unable  to  find  that  the  attention  of  the  court  was  directed 
to  the  question  here  suggested,  we  hesitate  to  accept  the  conclusions 
reached  as  final,  and  trust,  if  the  matter  should  again  reach  the  supreme 
court  for  decision,  that  the  question  may  be  positively  determined.  Eden 
Ind.  Lime  dc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  140,  147. 

50.  The  Commission  is  without  jurisdiction  to  order  the  restoration 
of  the  sidetrack  as  prayed  for.  The  track  was  installed  before  the  passage 
of  the  Railroad  Commission  Law  and  was  not  paid  for  in  full  by  the  owners 


Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 195 

of  the  industry  to  which  it  was  originally  built,  nor  in  part  by  the  peti- 
tioner or  her  predecessors.  Its  removal  is,  therefore,  not  subject  to  the 
conditions  imposed  by  sec.  1802  of  the  Statutes,  which  provides  for  the 
building  of  spur  tracks  at  the  expense  of  the  industry  desiring  them  and 
for  the  removal  only  upon  due  notice  and  for  good  cause,  shown.  Doyle 
v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  622. 

51.  It  is  well  settle'd  that  neither  the  legislature  nor  the  Commission 
can  compel  a  railroad  company  to  construct  sidings  at  its  own  expense. 
Any  statute  imposing  such  expense  upon  the  railway  company  would  be 
void.  N.  W.  Warehouse  Co.  v.  Oregon  Ry.  &  Navig.  Co.,  32  Wash.  218; 
Mays  V.  Seaboard  Airline  Ry.  Co.,  75  So.  Car.  455;  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Nebraska,  164  U.  S.  403;  Mo.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Nebraska,  217  U.  S.  196. 
For  the  reasons  given,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  Commission  is  with- 
out power  to  compel  the  respondent  railway  company  to  construct  the 
sidetrack  prayed  for  in  the  petition.  Osceola  Millg  Sc  El.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P. 
&  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  416,  420. 

Over  interchange  of  traflSc. 

52.  While  the  legislature  has  conferred  authority  upon  the  Commis- 
sion to  compel  railway  companies  to  provide  reasonable  facilities  for  the 
interchange  of  trafTic  between  their  respective  lines  (Wis.  Stats.,  sec. 
1797-11  and  sec.  1802c)  at  the  present  time  there  is  no  statutory  provision 
empowering  the  Commission  to  require  facilities  for  the  interchange  of  traf- 
fic between  land  and  water  carriers.  City  of  Ashland  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  816,  820. 

Over  interstate  commerce. 

53.  Neither  a  state  legislature  nor  a  commission  can  exercise  any 
rate  regulative  control  over  interstate  commerce.  In  determining 
whether  an  intrastate  rate  is  reasonable,  or  otherwise,  the  net  earnings 
which  the  carrier  derives  from  its  interstate  business  cannot  be  consid- 
ered. If  the  net  earnings  of  the  intrastate  trafTic  are  not  sufficient  to  war- 
rant a  reduction  in  the  rate  or  rates  complained  of,  it  is  immaterial  that 
the  net  earnings  on  the  entire  traffic,  intrastate  and  interstate,  would  be 
sufficient  to  justify  a  reduction.  Buel  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  C.  324,  340-346. 

54.  The  control  which  the  state  may  directly  or  through  a  state 
agency  exercise  over  trains  engaged  in  interstate  traffic,  is  exceedingly 
limited.  If  the  state  has  the  power  to  direct  the  routing  of  interstate 
traffic  where  a  railway  company  maintains  more  than  one  line  between 
two  points  in  the  state,  it  must  result  from  a  holding  that  the  exercise  of 
such  power  does  not  directly  regulate  or  place  a  burden  upon  interstate 
commerce,  or  that  the  routing  of  trains  in  such  instances  is  such  a  regula- 
tion that  the  state  may  properly  act  in  the  matter  until  the  congress 
has  legislated  on  the  subject  and  thereby  withdrawn  the  same  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  ihe  state.  Village  of  Abbotsford  i).  M.  St.  P.  6c  S.  S.  M. 
i?.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  619,  623. 

Over  interstate  shipments. 

55.  This  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  over  interstate  shipments 
and  has  no  power  or  authority  to  compel  carriers  to  make  joint  rates 


196 Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 

between  points  in  this  state  and  neighboring  states.  Sandoval  Zinc  Co.  v. 
M.  P.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  99,  100,  101;  National  Mfg.  Co.  v.  I.  C. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  509,  511;  National  Distilling  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  424,  428. 

56.  In  considering  the  matters  in  issue,  we  have  laid  aside  the  question 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Commission  because  of  the  fact  that  the  cars 
were  required  for  interstate  shipments,  and  have  determined  these  matters 
on  their  merits.  Colfax  Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  86,  91. 

57.  It  is  obvious  from  section  1  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  as 
amended  by  the  act  of  June  29,  1906,  that  congress  has  legislated  precisely 
upon  the  subject  of  the  receipt  and  delivery  of  interstate  shipments  of 
goods  by  express  carriers.  It  therefore  follows  conclusively,  that  what- 
ever power  this  Commission  may  have  possessed  to  regulate  the  delivery 
of  express  matter  transported  from  points  without  this  state  and  addressed 
to  individuals  at  stations  within  this  state  prior  to  the  act  of  congress 
placing  all  interstate  carriers  of  express  matter  under  the  provisions  of 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  the  Commission,  since  such  action  on  the 
part  of  the  congress,  is  without  jurisdiction  on  the  matter.  Strauss  v. 
American  Express  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  575. 

Over  interstate  trains. 

58.  It  would  seem  to  be  reasonably  clear  from  the  court  decisions 
cited  that  under  certain  circumstances  a  railroad  commission,  duly  em- 
powered by  statute,  may  compel  a  railway  company  to  stop  interstate 
trains  carrying  United  States  mails.  The  right  to  exercise  the  power 
would  seem  to  depend  on  a  question  of  fact  in  every  instance,  and  the 
essential  fact  to  be  determined  is  whether  or  not  the  locality  in  question 
is  adequately  ser^'^ed  by  other  trains.  Farmer  v.  D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  316,  321. 

59.  It  is  a  thoroughly  established  fact  of  law  that  a  state  commission 
has  no  authority  to  interfere  with  an  interstate  train  unless  such  interfer- 
ence is  necessary  in  order  to  provide  adequate  local  service.  If  without 
the  service  of  an  interstate  train  the  service  provided  to  the  locality  is 
adequate,  a  state  commission  has  no  authority  to  interfere  in  its  operation. 
Rosen  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1907,  1  R.  C.  512,  518;  Jones  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  615,  618;  Sager  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  660,  661;  Dyer  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
621,  625;  Anderton  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
247,  249;  Adams  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  506,  507;  Hugh- 
son  et  al.  V.  D.  S.  S.  <Sc  A.  R.  Co.,  1915, 15 R.  C.  599,  602.  603;  Fond  du 
Lac  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  606,  607. 

60.  The  Commission  will  not  hesitate  to  require  an  interstate  train 
to  stop  to  make  proper  connections  within  the  state  when  such  changes 
are  necessary  for  adequate  service.  Nolan  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al,  1915,  15  R.  C.  588,  591. 

Over  interurban  railway  service. 

61.  The  right  of  the  companies  to  operate  interurban  cars  upon  the 
streets  which  was  challenged  by  the  city,  is  a  judicial  question  and  not 


Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 197 

within  the  power  of  the  Commission  to  determine.  So  long  as  the  com- 
panies render  such  service,  however,  that  service  is  subject  to  the  super- 
vision and  regulation  of  the  Commission.  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E. 
R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  89,  97. 

Over  location  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines. 

62.  The  confronting  difficulty  in  the  case  is  the  want  of  jurisdiction 
in  the  Commission  to  compel  either  company  to  change  the  location  of 
its  lines.  If  the  telephone  company  has  suffered  damage  because  of  the 
interference  with  its  service  and  business,  it  may  possibly  recover  the 
same  in  an  action  in  court.  The  situation  here  presented  suggests  the 
necessity  of  additional  legislation,  giving  the  Commission  power  to  deter- 
mine the  location  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines.  Ebenezer  Tel.  Co. 
V.  M.  L.  H.  Sc  T.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  619,  621;  Platteville  etc.  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  622. 

Over  location  of  a  railroad  station. 

63.  The  Commission  is  empowered  in  a  proper  case  to  fix  the  point  of 
location  of  a  depot.  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1912,  8  R.  C.  719,  725;  Von  Berg  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  553,  554;  15  R.  C.  311,  312. 

Over  obstructions  in  navigable  streams. 

64.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  statute  (sec.  1596)  speaks  of  unlawful 
obstructions,  but  does  not  attempt  to  define  what  constitutes  an  unlawful 
obstruction.  Consequently,  in  the  absence  of  any  judicial  interpretation 
limiting  and  defining  the  term  "unlawful  obstruction,"  the  administra- 
tion of  the  statute  is  rendered  difficult  and  uncertain.  As  a  guide  to  the 
Commission,  it  is  essential  that  some  general  criterion  be  established  by 
which  the  unlawfulness  of  any  structure  in  or  over  a  navigable  stream 
may  be  determined.  In  re  Obstructions  in  the  Rock  River  at  Janesville, 
1914,  14  R.  C.  190,  202-203. 

Over  parties  to  proceedings. 

65.  The  Commission  has  no  power  to  make  any  order  affecting  any 
company  not  a  party  thereto.  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  68,  72. 

Over  physical  connection  of  telephone  systems. 

66.  The  objections  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  based  upon 
the  alleged  invalidity  of  the  statute  involved  in  these  proceedings  were 
also  set  up  in  the  answer  and  disposed  of,  in  the  case  of  Winter  v.  La  Crosse 
Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  748.  McGowan  v.  Rock  County  Tel.  Co. 
et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  529,  531-533. 

Over  private  commercial  dock  of  railroad  company. 

67.  Property  not  devoted  to  the  purpose  of  giving  the  service  that 
the  railway  company  holds  itself  out  as  offering,  is  essentially  private  in 
character  and  subject  to  the  control  of  the  railway  company.  It  has  been 
held  that  a  railway  company  is  not  required  to  maintain  a  dock  for  the 
purpose  of  allowing  any  competing  carriers  to  load  and  discharge  goods. 


198 Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 

Such  a  wharf  or  dock  is  the  company's  private  property  to  which  it  has 
the  sole  right  of  occupancy  and  the  power  of  regulation  thereof.  Louis- 
ville &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  West  Coast  Naval  Stores  Co.,  198  U.  S.  483. 
City  of  Ashland  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  816,  821. 

Over  private  logging  railroad. 

68.  The  line  in  question  in  the  present  case  was  operated  as  a  private 
logging  railroad  and  not  as  a  common  carrier.  The  Commission  is  there- 
fore without  jurisdiction  and  the  petition  must  be  dismissed.  Bolger 
et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  223,  234-235. 

Over  public  utilities. 

69.  Any  undertaking  or  practice  collateral  to  the  public  calling  of  a 
public  utility,  which  does  not  in  itself  impair  the  abihty  of  the  utility  to 
.fully  perform  its  public  functions  in  every  respect,  is  not  within  the  con- 
templation of  the  regulative  powers  of  the  Commission.  It  is  only  when 
the  public  is  prejudiced  in  the  matter  of  rates,  services,  or  facilities  by 
any  such  act,  practice  or  collateral  undertaking  of  a  public  utility  that  the 
Commission  may  step  in  and  exercise  its  supervisory  power  to  the  end 
that  such  prejudice  be  removed.  Fond  du  Lac  Business  Men^s  Assn.  et 
al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  340,  349. 

70.  The  company  has,  without  voluntary  election  so  to  do,  become 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  ch.  499  of  the  laws  of  1907,  known  as  the 
Pubhc  Utilities  Law,  and  acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplementary 
thereto.  The  fact  that  the  company  has  not  voluntarily  elected  to  come 
under  the  indeterminate  permit  provision  of  the  Utilities  Law  is  deemed 
to  be  of  no  material  effect.  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  291,294. 

a 

Over  railroads. 

71.  Sec.  1797-31  imposes  upon  the  Commission  the  duty  of  enforc- 
ing the  provisions  of  sections  1797-1  to  1797-38  inclusive,  known  as  the 
Railroad  Commission  Act,  as  well  as  all  other  laws  relating  to  railroads, 
and  to  report  all  violations  thereof  to  the  attorney-general.  In  re  Cross- 
ing on  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  in  Town  of  Gale,  1914,  14  R.  C.  445,  447-448. 

72.  The  phrase  in  the  law  "reasonably  adequate  service"  is  a  general 
and  inclusive  term  which  embraces  such  things  as  speed,  comfort  and 
safety.  Safety  is  one  of  the  elements  of  reasonably  adequate  service. 
Insofar  as  the  character  and  location  of  a  switchstand  affects  the  comfort 
and  safety  of  the  traveling  pubhc,  it  is  unquestionably  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  within  the  limits  of  the  Railroad  Com- 
mission Law.     Bradley  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  136,  141. 

Over  railroad  crossings. 

73.  Sec.  1797-12rf  of  the  Statutes  authorizes  the  Commission  to  order 
protection  "if  upon  such  hearing  it  shall  appear  to  the  commission  that 
the  crossing  complained  of  is  unsafe  and  dangerous  to  human  life." 
Town  of  Wilton  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  598,  602-603. 

74.  Sec.  1797-12e,  provides  that  when  a  petition  is  lodged  with  the 
Commission  by  the  town  board  of  any  town  to  the  effect  that  pubhc 


Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 199 

safety  requires  an  alteration  in  the  crossing  of  a  highway  by  a  railroad, 
or  its  approaches,  the  closing  of  a  highway  crossing  and  the  substitution 
of  another  therefor,  the  Commission  shall  determine  what  alteration  in 
such  crossing,  approaches,  etc.,  shall  be  made  and  by  whom  made,  and 
shall  fix  the  proportion  of  cost  and  expense  of  such  alteration,  removal  and 
new  crossing,  including  the  damages  to  any  person  whose  land  is  taken, 
to  be  paid  by  the  railroad  company  and  the  municipality  in  interest. 
Town  of  Westport  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  218,  220-221. 

75.  The  Commission  cannot  pass  upon  the  validity  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  board  of  supervisors  in  laying  out  a  highway  for  a  railroad  crossing. 
Whether  the  necessary  steps  were  taken  to  lay  out  the  highway  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  statute,  can  only  be  determined  by  the  courts. 
Town  of  Gillett  v.  C.  &:  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  535,  536. 

76.  The  mode  and  manner  of  the  crossing  of  the  respondent's  tracks 
by  the  proposed  highway  can  be  determined  independently  of  the  question 
whether  the  highway  has  been  lawfully  established  or  not,  for  the  actual 
laying  out  of  a  highway  is  not  a  condition  precedent  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Commission.  Town  of  Gillett  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C. 
535,  536. 

77.  A  petition  from  the  town  or  village  authorities  is  necessary  to 
give  the  Commission  authority  to  order  further  protection  at  the  crossing 
in  question.  Laursen  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C. 
627,  632. 

78.  Action  brought  under  sec.  1797-12e.  Although  the  petition  in 
this  case  does  not  follow  the  technical  wording  of  the  law,  namely  "that 
public  safety  requires  the  determination",  etc.,  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that 
the  petition  is  to  that  effect.  The  allegation  of  the  petition  and  of  the 
resolution  of  the  village  board  attached  thereto  unquestionably  tend  to 
show  that  the  power  of  the  Commission  is  invoked  to  provide  for  the 
requirements  of  public  safety.  Village  of  Mt.  Horeb  v.  C.  Sc  N'.  W.  R.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  C.  495,  498. 

79.  The  Commission  is  without  authority  to  determine  the  mode  and 
manner  of  a  railway  crossing  on  any  street  until  the  proper  proceedings 
have  been  taken  to  have  the  street  legally  opened  over  the  railroad  right 
of  way.  Sec.  1797-12e  of  the  Statutes  applies  only  to  streets  or  highways 
which  have  been  legally  opened.  Village  of  Unity  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  430,  431. 

80.  The  Commission  has  taken  the  position  that  the  question  of  the 
public  necessity  of  a  proposed  crossing  is  to  be  determined  by  the  munici- 
pality in  interest  and  that  the  Commission  is  without  jurisdiction  in  the 
matter  (Town  of  Elcho  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  796,  and 
Town  of  Superior  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  300),  and  we 
see  no  reason  for  withdrawing  from  the  position  there  taken.  To  hold 
otherwise  would  in  effect  place  the  Commission  in  the  position  of  dictating 
a  municipality's  highway  development.  Town  of  Remington  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  609,  610. 

Over  railroad  crossings — Cattle  guards. 

81.  Sec.  1813  is  supplementary  to  sec.  1810,  which  specifically 
provides  for  the  construction  of  cattle  guards  only  at  highway  crossings. 


200  Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 

The  farm  owner  is  authorized  by  sec,  1813  to  serve  notice  upon  the  railway 
company  to  "construct  the  necessary  farm  crossings  and  cattle  guards 
thereon"  and  a  penalty  is  fixed  for  the  railway  company's  failure  to  do  so. 
In  our  opinion  sec.  1813  makes  it  obligatory  upon  a  railway  company  to 
provide  cattle  guards  and  the  wing  fences  necessary  for  their  efficient 
use  at  farm  crossings  upon  notice  from  a  farm  owner.  Von  Rueden  v. 
CM.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  272,  275,  276. 

Over  railroad  crossings — Relocation  of  crossing.  ^ 

-  82.  The  legislature  of  1913  (ch.  603,  laws  of  1913)  empowered  the 
Commission  to  order  the  closing  of  a  grade  crossing  and  the  substitution 
of  another  therefor  at  grade,  if  found  necessary  in  the  interest  of  public 
safety.  In  re  Barron's  Crossing  in  the  Town  of  Almena,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
128,129. 

Relocation  of  highway. 

83.  Authority  was  conferred  upon  the  Commission  by  ch.  603,  laws 
of  1913  (sec.  1797-12/)  to  order  the  relocation  of  highways.  In  re  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Crossings  in  Cross  Plains,  1914,  14  R.  C.  343,  344. 

Restoration  of  a  highway. 

84.  The  contention  that  the  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  to  enforce 
the  provisions  of  sec.  1836  of  the  Statutes  was  discussed  in  In  re  Crossing 
on  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  in  Town  of  Gale,  1914,  14  R.  C.  445,  and  the 
opinion  there  given  is  here  followed.  Town  of  Menomonee  v.  C.  &  W.  R.  C. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  549,  552. 

Separation  of  grades. 

85.  The  Commission  is  without  power  to  require  the  expenditure  of 
money  by  either  the  town  or  the  railway  company  for  aesthetic  purposes 
in  the  construction  of  an  overhead  bridge  at  a  railway  crossing.  Town  of 
Madison  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  395,  398. 

86.  Sec.  1797-12e  of  the  statutes  requires  a  petition  for  a  separation 
of  grades  to  be  lodged  by  the  common  council  of  a  city,  the  village  board 
of  a  village,  the  town  board  of  a  town  or  by  a  railway  company,  and  the 
Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  in  such  proceedings  when  instituted  by 
individuals.  Rueckert  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C. 
749,  750. 

87.  The  Commission  has  jurisdiction  under  sec.  1797-12e  of  the 
statutes  to  pass  upon  the  safety  of  a  crossing  not  at  grade  upon  complaint 
by  the  proper  municipal  authorities.  City  of  Monroe  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1914,.14  R.  C.  176,  178. 

Over  railroad  grade  which  interferes  with  access  to  a  river. 

88.  The  petitioners  allege  that  the  construction  of  the  new  grade  of 
the  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  along  the  Mississippi  river  in  front  of  the  village 
of  De  Soto  has  cut  off  the  village  from  access  to  the  river  for  navigation 
purposes.  Held:  The  Commission  has  no  authority  to  take  action  to 
prevent  interference  with  the  access  of  the  residents  of  the  village  to  the 
river.  The  complaint  is  dismissed.  Andrew  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  &:  Q.  R.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.C.  567,  568. 


Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 201 

Over  rates  established  by  contract. 

89.  For  the  state,  through  the  Commission,  to  interpose  in  the  present 
case  or  in  any  such  case  to  change  or  authorize  a  change  in  the  rates 
named  in  a  contract,  is  not  such  an  impairment  of  contract  obHgations 
ias  comes  within  the  inhibition  of  the  constitution,  but  instead  is  carrying 
out  one  of  the  terms  or  provisions  of  the  contract  (Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc 
&  Northern  Tr.  Co.,  145  Wis.  13).  A  case  decided  by  the  supreme  court 
of  Wisconsin  as  late  as  December,  1914  (M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
Appellant,  v.Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.,  150  N.  W.  411)  makes  very  clear 
this  principle.  The  right  of  the  legislature  through  the  Railroad  Com- 
mission to  change  or  authorize  a  change  in  rates  named  in  contracts 
made  by  public  service  corporations  is  well  established.  In  re  Appl. 
Rhinelander  P.  Co.  to  Amend  its  Rates,  1915,  15  R.  C.  783,  813,  814. 

Over  rates — Public  utility. 

90.  That  part  of  the  application  which  relates  to  reductions  in  rates 
requires  no  especial  attention  at  the  hands  of  this  Commission,  for  the 
reason  that  reductions  are  permissible  without  express  authority,  provided 
that  the  provisions  of  the  law  relating  to  the  publication  of  rates  be 
complied  with  and  that  such  reductions  do  not  create  unjust  discrimina- 
tions.    In  re  Appl.  Tomah  El  Sc  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  296;  297. 

91.  The  reasonableness  of  the  present  rates  is  a  question  of  facts, 
and,  as  such,  may  best  be  determined  without  passing  on  all-  the  phases 
of  the  legal  relations  that  may  exist  between  the  applicant  and  the  city. 
The  plant  involved  is  a  public  utility  operating  under  an  indeterminate 
permit  of  the  state,  and,  as  such,  is  subject  to  the  Public  Utilities  Law. 
In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  719. 

Railroad. 

92.  The  legislature  may  enact  a  general  law,  providing  that  all  rates 
of  charge  for  the  carriage  of  persons,  or  of  property,  shall  be  reasonable, 
and  prohibiting  unjust  or  extortionate  charges,  and  may  delegate  to  an 
administrative  body,  created  by  it,  the  power  to  ascertain  and  determine 
the  fact  as  to  when  a  rate  is  unreasonable,  and  to  substitute  a  reasonable 
one  therefor.  Such  action  on  the  part  of  the  legislature  does  not  con- 
stitute a  delegation  of  legislative  power  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution, 
and  the  legislature  of  Wisconsin,  by  the  enactment  of  ch.  362,  laws  of 
1905,  conferred  such  power  on  the  Railroad  Commission.  Buell  v. 
C\  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  324,  337-345. 

93.  The  Railroad  Commission  is  empowered  to  carry  out  the  pro- 
visions of  ch.  362  of  the  laws  of  1905  by  holding  hearings,  conducting 
investigations,  and  determining  and  establishing  reasonable  charges. 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  11. 

94.  The  Commission  is  not  bound  by  the  suggestions  of  the  peti- 
tioners, but  is  free  to  establish  what  it  considers  to  be  reasonable  rates 
under  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  Rl  Co. 
et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  598,  599-600. 


Street  railway. 

95.  Under  the  provisions  of  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905,  and  acts  amendatory 
thereto,  the  Railroad  Commission  has  been  created  to  determine  the 


202 Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 

reasonableness  of  rates  of  traction  utilities  and  where  present  rates  are 
unreasonable  to  fix  and  determine  the  lawful  rate.  Cusick  el  al.  v.  T.  M. 
E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  10  R.  C.  314,  335. 

Over  relations  between  officials  of  a  utility. 

96.  The  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the-  relations  between 
a  utility  official  and  the  board  of  directors  unless  such  relations  impair 
the  service  or  create  unreasonable  rates.  Pospichal  et  al.  v.  Muscoda 
Mulual  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  578,  579. 

Over  river  improvements. 

97.  The  Commission  has  power  to  regulate  all  river  improvements 
so  as  to  conserve  all  public  rights  in  such  waters,  promote  the  improve- 
ment of  navigation  and  protect  life,  health  and  property.  Freeholders, 
etc.  of  Dodge  County  v.  McWilliams,  1914,  13  R.  C.  603,  605. 

Over  stock  and  bond  issues. 

98.  If  the  corporation  complies  with  all  the  requirements  of  the 
Commission  by  furnishing  such  statements  and  evidence  as  the  Commis- 
sion "may  deem  pertinent  to  the  inquiry,"  and  the  Commission  finds  no 
illegality  in  the  proposed  issue  of  stocks,  bonds  or  other  evidences  of 
indebtedness,  it  must  issue  to  the  corporation  a  certificate  authorizing 
it  to  issue  such  stock,  bonds  or  other  evidences  of  indebtedness  to  the 
amount,  of  the  character,  for  the  purposes  and  upon  the  terms  proposed 
on  the  part  of  the  corporation.  Unless  the  proposed  issue  of  stocks, 
bonds  or  other  evidences  of  indebtedness  are  unauthorized  or  unlawful 
in  any  of  the  particulars  above  mentioned,  the  Commission  cannot  deny 
the  granting  of  the  certificates.  In  re  Southern  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1907, 
2  R.  C.  47,  54-56. 

Over  street  railways. 

99.  Our  conclusion  is  that  any  street  railway  company  that  is  not 
solely  engaged  in  the  transportation  of  passengers  within  the  limits  of 
cities  is  subject  to  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905,  both  as  to  its  urban  and  interurban 
business  and  that  the  reports  of  accidents  should  include  both  classes  of 
business.  In  re  Appl.  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  1905,  to  Street  Railways,  1906, 
1  R.  C.  178,  191.  - 

100.  Although  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  Railroad  Commission 
Law  the  power  of  service  regulation  was  vested  in  the  common  council  and 
the  regulative  ordinance  of  1901  was  a  valid  exercise  of  that  power,  juris- 
diction in  the  matter  was  subsequently  conferred  on  the  Commission  and 
any  prior  act  of  the  common  council  which  conflicts  with  the  exercise  of  the 
proper  authority  by  the  Commission  cannot  stand.  Jones  v.  Wis.  Ry.  Lt. 
Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  174,  176. 

Over  switching  connections  for  intrastate  commerce. 

101.  The  petitioner  is  not  tendering  to  the  railway  company  inter- 
state traffic.  He  is  seeking  facilities  for  intrastate  traffic  only.'  His 
remedy,  if  any,  under  the  circumstances,  must  be  found  in  the  state 
statute.     The  interstate  commerce  commission  certainly  cannot  grant 


Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 203 

him  the  rehef  he  asks.    Phelps  v.  C.  M.  iSc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  556, 
563. 

Over  switching  of  commodities  brought  from  points  outside  of 
the  state. 

102.  The  point  was  raised  that  the  Commission  is  without  jurisdiction 
over  the  question  of  switching  rates  for  grain  in  the  city  of  Superior,  be- 
cause the  grain  in  question  was  bought  at  points  outside  of  Wisconsin, 
and  that  for  this  reason  the  switching  of  the  same  is  interstate  trafTic. 
Held:  That  notwithstanding  that  the  grain  switched  is  brought  from  points 
outside  of  the  state,  the  switching  at  Superior  is  not  interstate  traffic  and 
the  switching  rates  are  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission.  Duluth 
Superior  Milling  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  598,  599;  6  R.  C. 
70.  72. 

Over  tell  tales. 

103.  Sec.  36,  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905,  provides  that  "all  powers,  duties 
and  privileges  imposed  and  conferred  upon  the  railroad  commissioner  of 
this  state  under  existing  laws  are  hereby  imposed  and  conferred  upon  the 
commission."  It  is  therefore  made  the  duty  of  the  Commission  to  pre- 
scribe rules  and  regulations  governing  the  erection  of  tell  tales.  In  re 
Rules  for  Tell  Tales,  1908,  2  R.  C.  757,  761. 

Over  train  service. 

104.  It  is  our  understanding  of  sec.  1801,  of  the  statutes  that  the 
quantity  of  service  required  thereby  is  a  minimum  which  may  or  may  not 
fully  meet  the  requirements  of  adequacy.  The  Commission  would  not  be 
justified  in  finding  that  fewer  trains  could  furnish  adequate  service  at  a 
station  within  the  classification,  but  certainly  if  the  designated  number  of 
trains  were  stopped  at  extremely  inconvenient  hours,  thereby  rendering 
the  service  of  little  or  no  value  to  the  residents  of  the  locality,  the  Com- 
mission would  have  power  to  require  a  rearrangement  of  schedule  or  the 
operation  of  additional  trains.  Callen  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  581,  583-584. 

Over  warehouse  sites. 

105.  The  statute  which  gives  the  Commission  authority  over  ware- 
house sites  on  railroad  property  evidently  contemplates  a  business  in 
which  a  specific  service  is  rendered  to  all  demanding  it  for  a  uniform  com- 
pensation. (Wis.  Stat.,  sec.  1802a.)  American  Society  of  Equity  v.  C.  St. 
P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  557,  558;  Rust  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.,  1914.  14  R.  C.  251,  252. 

Over  water  powers. 

106.  Since  ch.  652,  laws  of  1911,  has  been  declared  unconstitutional 
(Water  Power  Cases,  1912, 148  Wis.  124).  the  Commission  is  without  juris- 
diction to  regulate  and  control  the  level  and  flow  of  water  in  navigable 
streams  within  the  state.  Law  et  al.  v.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &.  P.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  380,  381-382. 


204 Railroad  Commission. — Jurisdiction  of 

Over  western  classification. 

107.  The  incident  of  publishing  state  and  interstate  tariffs  between 
the  same  covers  cannot  affect  the  question  of  jurisdiction.  If  this  were  true, 
it  would  be  possible  to  withdraw  all  state  rates  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Commission  by  publication  with  interstate  rates.  There  can  be  no 
reasonable  question  regarding  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  over  the 
western  classification  insofar  as  it  affects  or  governs  shipments  between 
points  in  Wisconsin.  Crary  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sz  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3 
R.  C.  432,  435-436. 

VII.  ORDERS  OF  COMMISSION. 

Judicial  review. 

108.  'In  reviewing  the  order  of  the  Railroad  Commission  the  inquiry 
is  not  whether  the  rate,  regulation,  or  service  fixed  by  the  Commission  is 
just  and  reasonable,  but  whether  the  order  of  the  Commission  is  unreason- 
able or  unlawful.  The  nature  of  the  inquiry  is  changed  at  this  point,  and 
the  court  is  not  investigating  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  fixed  point. 
Whether  or  not  the  order  is  within  the  field  of  reasonableness,  or  outside 
of  its  boundaries,  is  the  question  for  the  court.  It  is  quite  a  different 
question  from  that  which  was  before  the  Commission  in  this  respect.  The 
order  being  found  by  the  court  to  be  such  that  reasonable  men  might  well 
differ  with  respect  to  its  correctness  cannot  be  said  to  be  unreasonable. 
From  this  aspect  it  is  within  the  domain  of  reason,  not  outside  of  its  bound- 
aries. This  is  the  viewpoint  of  the  reviewing  court."  (M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Commission,  1908,  136  Wis.  146,  165,  168,  171.) 
State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501, 
624. 

-109.  The  determination  of  the  validity  of  a  statute  is  a  judicial  and 
not  an  administrative  function.  Tribunals  such  as  this  Commission  should 
not  attempt  to  set  at  naught  legislation,  even  though  convinced  of  its 
invalidity,  unless  the  enforcement  of  the  same  would  result  in  some  irre- 
parable injury.  No  such  consequence  can  result  from  any  order  of  the 
Commission  requiring  compliance  with  the  particular  statute  whose 
validity  is  challenged  for  in  a  proper  proceeding  any  order  of  the  Commis- 
sion based  upon  the  statute  may  be  reviewed  in  court  and  the  validity  of 
the  statute  tested.    Teasdale  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  9  R.  C.  66,  73. 

VIII.  POWER  OF  COMMISSION. 

General  powers. 

110.  The  general  powers  vested  in  the  Commission  by  the  Commission 
Act  relate  to  the  regulation  of  services  and  rates  of  railway  companies. 
The  duties  of  such  companies  generally  prescribed  by  the  statute,  which  is 
declaratory  of  the  common  law,  are  contained  in  section  1797-3.  Stresen- 
Reuter  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  394,  395. 

Implied  powers. 

111.  Powers  may  be  implied  where  they  are  essential  to  carry  out  the 
express  purposes  of  a  statute,  and  without  which  the  statute  would  be 


Railroad  Commission. — Power  of 205 

ineffective,  but  the  implication  of  terms  and  provisions  for  the  mere  sake 
of  convenience,  or  for  the  purpose  of  extending  the  scope  of  a  statute, 
is  not  permitted.  Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292, 
298. 

With  respect  to  abandonment  of  street  railway  track  within  a  city. 

112.  The  Commission  cannot  either  authorize  the  construction  or 
extension  of  any  electric  railroad  within  a  city,  or  prevent  the  abandonment 
or  change  of  location  of  any  part  of  such  a  road  constructed  under  a  fran- 
chise granted  by  a  common  council,  if  the  council's  consent  thereto  has 
been  obtained.  Lang  et'  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  292, 
298;  Brown  v.  Janesville  Street  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  757,  761. 

With  respect  to  abandonment  made  without  legal  sanction. 

113.  Power  is  vested  in  the  Commission  to  enforce,  in  any  proper  case, 
the  performance  of  the  public  functions  of  a  railway  company  when  the 
same  have  been  undertaken  by  the  company,  and  such  power  cannot  be 
defeated  by  an  illegal  abandonment  and  tearing  up  of  any  portion  of  the 
company's  hne.    Brown  v.  Janesville  Street  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  757,  761. 

With  respect  to  abatement  of  nuisances. 

114.  The  Commission  has  no  authority  to  abate  nuisances.  Stresen- 
Reuter  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  394,  395;  Andrew  et  al.  v. 
C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  567,  568. 

With  respect  to  annulling  of  franchise  of  public  utility, 

115.  The  petitioner  has  entered  the  wrong  forum  to  obtain  the  relief 
it  seeks.  If  the  respondent  has  violated  its  franchise  granted  by  the  city 
and  neglected  to  perform  any  public  duties  which  it  has  assumed,  as  alleged, 
and  petitionertherefore  desires  a  forfeiture  of  its  franchise,  it  should  have 
carried  its  grievance  to  the  attorney-general,  and  not  to  this  Commission, 
which  is  without  authority  in  the  premises.  State  ex  rel.  Attorney-General 
V.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  92  Wis.  496.  Chilton  v.  Wis.  El.  Service  Co.  et  al., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  326,  331. 

With  respect  to  awarding  damages  due  to  negligence  of  carrier. 

116.  Damage  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  can  be  recovered 
only  in  an  action  in  court.  The  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  in  the 
matter.    Deeves  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  507,  510. 

With  respect  to  certificates  of  public  convenience  and  necessity. 

117.  Under  the  present  state  of  the  law,  we  have  no  power  to  place 
limitations,  restrictions  or  conditions  upon  railway  companies  in  the  con- 
struction of  new  railroads  or  extensions  of  existing  lines  in  a  proceeding  for 
a  certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity.  The  sole  question  before 
the  Commission  in  such  a  proceeding  is,  whether  public  convenience  re- 

•  quires  and  a  necessity  exists  for  the  construction  of  the  proposed  road  or  a 
part  thereof,  or  any  proposed  extension  of  a  line  of  railroad,  as  the  case  may 
be.  Upon  the  determination  of  this  question  alone,  the  right  of  the  railway 
company  to  have  issued  to  it  a  certificate  of  convenience  and  necessity 
depends.    In  re  Appl.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  266,  282. 


206      Railroad  Commission. — Power  of 

118.  From  the  manifest  purpose  of  the  Public  Convenience  and  Ne- 
cessity Law,  the  Commission  could  not  grant  certificates  on  both  applica- 
tions for  the  construction  of  parallel  roads  if  competition  is  the  Only  object 
to  be  gained  thereby.  In  re  Appl.  Milwaukee  Lt.  Ht.  and  Tr.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  288,  291. 

119.  As  the  law  now  stands,  the  Commission  has  no  authority  to 
authorize  the  construction  of  a  portion  of  a  proposed  line  after  having  de- 
termined that  public  convenience  and  necessity  require  the  construction  of 
the  entire  line  (Eastern  R.  Co.  of  Minn.  v.  McCord,  1908,  136  Wis.  249). 
It  follows,  that  if  the  statute  is  to  have  any  efficiency  in  accomplishing 
the  purpose  of  its  enactment,  it  must  be  held  that  authority  to  construct 
a  line  as  an  entirety  does  not  imply  authority  to  construct  only  a  part  of 
such  line  and  to  abandon  the  remainder;  otherwise  the  prime  purpose  of 
the  law  might  be  defeated  in  many  instances.  In  re  Appl.  Milwaukee  <Sc 
Fox  River  Valley  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  466,  475. 

With    respect    to    considering    possible    future    value    of  property 
in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates. 

120.  The  law  under  which  the  Commission  derives  its  authority  to 
supervise  the  rates  of  telephone  companies  provides,  among  other  things, 
that  "the  Commission  shall  value  all  the  property  of  every  pubhc  utility 
actually  used  and  useful  for  the  convenience  of  the  public."  It  is  the  mani- 
fest intention  of  the  law  that  this  value,  and  no  other,  be  used  in  determin- 
ing the  reasonableness  of  rates.  No  authority  has  been  shown  the  Com- 
mission for  considering  value  which  it  is  expected  will  go  into  the  plant, 
but  not  yet  there,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  reasonableness  of 
rates.  The  blanket  authority  to  increase  rates  at  the  will  of  the  petitioner, 
up  to  a  certain  amount  determined  only  by  the  expectations  of  the  peti:- 
tioner  as  to  the  necessity  of  increasing  its  investment,  cannot  be  granted. 
In  re  Appl.  Portage  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  692.  693. 

With  respect  to  interchange  of  traffic  between  connecting  carriers. 

121.  When  it  becomes  necessary  for  the  convenient  transportation 
of  freight  in  carload  lots  that  the  tracks  of  connecting  lines  be  joined,  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  railroads  to  make  track  connections,  and  on  failure  to 
do  so  the  Commission  may  order  such  connection  to  be  made  by  the  com- 
panies. City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Li.  Ht.  <Sc  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
471,  476. 

With  respect  to  issuance  of  an  order  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  an 
existing  franchise. 

122.  Under  the  Constitution  and  the  Public  Utilities  Law  a  franchise 
granted  by  a  city  is  not  a  contract  which  binds  such  city  to  the  terms  of 
that  franchise  for  all  time  to  come  and  which  forever  prevents  a  central 
state  commission  from  making  an  order  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  such 
franchise.  City' of  Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C. 
74,  95. 

With  respect  to  issuance  of  retroactive  orders. 

123.  The  law  does  not  authorize  the  Commission  to  make  orders 
which  are  retroactive.     In  re  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  534,  553. 


Railroad  Commission. — Power  of 207 

With  respect  to  joint  rates. 

124.  To  argue  that  if  the  Commission  were  to  order  a  joint  rate  in 
the  present  case,  it  would  be  obUged  to  order  one  in  every  other  case  that 
may  hereafter  arise,  is  also  to  argue  that  if  the  Commission  were  to  deny 
a  joint  rate  in  the  present  case  it  would  be  obliged  to  do  so  in  every  sub- 
sequent case.  If  this  is  the  logical  conclusion  of  this  process  of  reason- 
ing the  statute  providing  for  joint  rates  would  be  effectually  nullified. 
Plumb  &  Nelson  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al..  1906,  1  R.  C.  19,  24. 

125.  It  is  within  the  constitutional  power  of  the  legislature  to  either 
compel  carriers  to  make  joint  rates  by  direct  act  or  to  confer  on  the  Rail- 
road Commission  the  power  to  order  joint  rates  to  be  made.  Manitowoc 
Malting  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1906,  1  R.  C.  69,  85. 

126.  In  the  case  of  carriers  which  are  engaged  almost  exclusively  in 
transporting  passengers  and  situated  as  the  respondents  are  at  Neenah, 
physical  connection  of  tracks  is  not  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the 
formation  of  business  connections.  The  objection. interposed  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Commission  is  overruled  and  the  petition  will  be  heard  upon 
its  merits.  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
471,  472,  476-477. 

127.  This  Commission  is  authorized  by  law  to  make  joint  rates  be- 
tween carriers.  The  fact  that  this  authority  was  lodged  in  the  Commis- 
sion, rather  than  made  a  general  duty  of  the  carriers,  indicates  that  the 
legislature  had  in  mind  that  there  were  conditions  under  which  joint  rates 
ought  to  be  established,  as  well  as  conditions  under  which  they  ought  not 
to  be  put  into  effect.  Whether  in  any  given  case  joint  rates  should  be 
put  in  or  not,  is  a  question  of  fact.  Conrad  Schreier  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  668,  670^671. 

128.  The  only  groun^l  upon  which  the  Commission  may  supervise 
contracts  entered  into  by  connecting  railways  for  the  division  of  through 
rates,  is  an  excessive  division  of  such  rates  granted  by  one  railway  to 
another  which  operates  as  a  rebate  to  a  shipper  by  reason  of  his  owner- 
ship of  the  road  receiving  such  exorbitant  share  of  the  through  rates,  or 
which,  for  other  reasons,  may  be  in  violation  of  law.  In  re  Appl.  W.-G. 
B.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  291,  295. 

With  respect  to  joint  use  of  street  railway  tracks. 

129.  This  Commission  believes  that  it  is  within  its  authority  to  decide 
which  of  two  street  railway  companies  ordered  to  make  joint  use  of  tracks 
shall  supply  the  power  used  over  the  tracks  in  question.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc 
L.  Co.  V.  Chi.  cfc  Mil.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  299,  309. 

With  respect  to  municipal  ordinance  affecting  rates  or  service  of 
public  utility. 

130.  The  section  of  the  statute  under  which  these  proceedings  were 
instituted  (sec.  1797m-87)  was  designed  to  give  the  Commission  the 
power  to  pass  upon  the  reasonableness  of  any  ordinance,  contract  or  reso- 
lution of  a  common  council  directly  affecting  the  rates  or  service  of  any 
public  utility  or  indirectly  tending  to  place  an  unnecessary  burden  upon 
the  utility  which  might  result  in  embarrassing  it  in  the  performance  of  its 


208 Railroad  Commission. — Power  of 

public  function  in  the  manner  required  by  the  Public  Utilities  Law.     In  re 
Appl.  Madison  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  293,  302-303. 

With  respect  to  operation  of  branch  line  of  railroad. 

131.  The  company  has  not  relieved  itself  of  any  duty  which  it  owed 
to  the  public  as  a  common  carrier,  by  neglecting  to  take  the  preliminary 
steps  provided  for  by  statute.  It  is  not  in  any  position  to  claim  immunity 
by  reason  of  its  failure  to  do  what  it  should  have  done  before  building  the 
extension  in  question.  (Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.  Upham  Mfg.  Co.,  1909, 
1  R.  C.  739,  766),  and  it  can  be  compelled  to  operate  this  line,  even 
though  its  board  of  directors  failed  to  pass  a  resolution  making  the  branch 
a  part  of  its  system  under  sec.  1831  of  the  statutes.  Meyer  v.  Rib  Lake 
Lbr.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  7  R.  C.  401,  406-407. 

With  respect  to  rate  fixed  in  a  special  franchise  to  a  street  railway 
company, 

132.  The  Commission  has  the  power  to  vary  a  rate  fixed  in  a  special 
franchise  granted  by  a  municipality  to  a  street  railway  company.  {City 
of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  &  N.  Tr.  Co.,  1911,  145  Wis.  13,  29-30.)  City 
ofNeenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  400,  401. 

With  respect  to  rate  making. 

133.  The  making  of  a  non-compensatory  rate  would  amount  to  a  de- 
prival  of  the  railway  companies  of  their  property  without  due  process  of 
law.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  10  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  462;  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  v.  B.  xSc  0.  R.  Co.,  43  Fed,  Rep,  42;  Smyth  v.  Ames, 
169  U.  S.  466.  And  in  no  event  would  the  Commission  have  the  power 
to  establish  a  higher  rate  for  the  transportation  of  one  class  of  individuals 
than  for  another.  In  re  Construction  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  of  1905,  1905, 
1  R.  C.  1,  4.  5. 

With  respect  to  rates  and  service  of  railroads. 

134.  A  company  may  make  a  concession  in  the  matter  of  rates  and 
loading  requirements  which  could  not  be  imposed  upon  it  by  the  Commis- 
sion. The  Commission  is  limited  in  the  requirements  it  may  make  of 
common  carriers  by  the  condition  that  such  requirements  must  be  reason- 
able under  the  circumstances  of  the  particular  case  under  consideration. 
Minneapolis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  AT.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  206,  209. 

With  respect  to  rate  wars  between  competing  railroads. 

135.  We  assume  that  it  is  fully  mthin  the  power  of  this  Commission 
to  prevent  a  rate  war  between  competing  railways  and  to  compel  the 
competitors  to  charge  a  rate  which  is  reasonable  under  all  the  circum- 
stances in  the  case.  This  power  is  clearly  lodged  with  the  Commission 
by  sees.  1797-12  and  1797-28  of  the  Railroad  Commission  Law,  as 
amended.  In  re  Appl.  Milwaukee  &  Fox  River  Valley  R.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  466,  474^75. 

With  respect  to  rate  wars  between  competing  utilities. 

136.  That  rate  wars  are  against  publio  policy  is  recognized  in  the 
Public  Utilities  Law,  for  it  is  clearly  in  order  to  enable  this  Commission 


Railroad  Commission. — Power  of 209 

to  prevent  or  stop  such  struggles  that  sec.  1797/77-99  was  included  therein. 
Kenosha  El.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Kenosha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  119,  120; 
In  re  Invest.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  541,  551. 

With  respect  to  restoration  of  a  highway  crossing  to  former  use- 
fulness. 

137.  No  argument  has  been  advanced  that  changes  our  view  that  the 
Commission  is  vested  with  ample  authority  to  compel  a  railway  company 
to  perform  the  duties  imposed  upon  it  by  sec.  1836  and  sec.  1299/?-l  of 
the  statutes.  Town  of  Rhine  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  184, 
188-189. 

With  respect  to  safety  of  bridges  upon  which  railways  are  con- 
structed. 

138.  Under  ch.  590,  laws  of  1911,  the  Commission  may,  on  its  own 
motion,  inquire  into  the  safety  of  highway  bridges  over  which  interurban 
railways  operate.  In  re  West  Algoma  Street  Bridge  in  Oshkosh,  1912, 
8  R.  G.  441,  444. 

With  respect  to  sale  of  tickets  at  less  than  the  maximum  rate 
fixed  by  law. 

139.  In  view  of  the  holding  of  the  United  States  supreme  court,  in 
the  case  of  the  Lake  Shore  Sc  Michigan  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  1898, 
173  U.  S.  684,  the  Commission  cannot  in  any  instance  require  the  sale  of 
tickets  at  less  than  the  maximum  rate  fixed  by  statute.  Lieberman  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  330,  334-335.. 

With  respect  to  service  and  facilities — Of  interurban  railways. 

140.  The  law  imposes  upon  the  company  the  duty  of  furnishing 
"reasonably  adequate  service  and  facilities,"  and  this  Commission  is  em- 
powered to  enforce  such  obligation  in  case  of  failure  or  neglect  to  perform. 
City  ofDe  Pere  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  604,  615. 

Of  railroads. 

141 .  Although  the  powers  of  the  Commission  relative  to  the  regulation 
of  the  service  and  facilities  of  railways  are  very  extensive,  they  are  not 
without  their  limitations,  nor  are  they  exclusive  in  every  instance.  In 
all  legislation  pertaining  to  the  control  and  regulation  of  public  service 
corporations,  the  legislature  seems  to  have  exercised  particular  care  in 
preserving  the  right  of  cities,  especially  to  control  their  streets,  highways 
and  public  grounds  in  respect  to  the  use  thereof  by  such  corporations. 
Lang  et  at.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  292,  296. 

142.  If  existing  facilities  are  reasonably  adequate,  the  Commission 
is  without  authority  to  order  additional  facilities.  Homstad  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  1,  4. 

143.  Sec.  1801  was  impliedly  repealed  by  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905, 
which  conferred  upon  the  Commission  the  power  to  regulate  the  rates  and 
services  of  railway  companies  within  the  state.  However,  the  legislature, 
by  ch.  483,  laws  of  1911,  reenacted  sec.  1801  with  certain  amendments. 
This  statute  deprives  the  Commission  of  any  discretion  in  the  matter. 


210 Railroad  Commission. — Power  of 

It  fixes  the  quantum  of  passenger  service  for  every  station  coming  within 
the  classification  made.  Schlosstein  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C. 
242,  246. 

With  respect  to  service  and  facilities — Of  street  railways. 

144.  The  Commission  may  regulate  the  service  of  all  electric  and 
surface  street  railway  companies,  whether  their  lines  are  within  or  with- 
out the  limits  of  municipalities,  or  both,  and  may  also  regulate  all  the 
facilities  of  such  corporations  devoted  to  the  public  service,  subject  only 
to  the  restrictions  and  limitations  prescribed  by  law.  Lang  et  al.  v.  City 
of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  298. 

145.  The  Commission  has  no  authority  to  order  extensions  of  street 
railway  lines.  City  of  Merrill  v.  Merrill  Ry.  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5.  R.  C. 
418,  425;  City  of  Racine  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  148,  149. 

146.  The  carriage  of  freight  through  the  city  streets  by  respondent 
would  cast  an  additional  burden  on  the  fee,  for  which  abutting  owners 
would  be  entitled  to  compensation,  and  in  view  of  the  reasonable  doubt 
as  to  the  existence  of  the  authority  contended  for  in  the  franchise  in  ques- 
tion, the  authority  cannot  be  inferred.  The  Commission  is  without  juris- 
diction. Wis.  Veterans'  Home  v.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1915, 
15  R.  C.  656,  666. 

Of  telephone  companies. 

147.  Though  the  Commission  apparently  has  no  authority  to  order 
the  Lisbon  Tel.  Co.  to  cease  giving  service  to  subscribers  along  the  road 
named,  the  failure  of  the  company  to  discontinue  such  service  will  render 
the  company  liable  to  prosecution.  In  re  Alleged  Viol,  of  Law  by  Lisbon 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  131,  135. 


RAILROAD  COMMISSION  ACT. 

See  Railroad  Law. 

RAILROAD  COMMISSION  LAW. 

See  Railroad  Law. 

RAILROAD  CROSSINGS. 

See  Railroads. 

RAILROAD  EXTENSIONS. 

See  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 


Railroad  Law. — Construction  of  211 


RAILROAD  LAW. 


I.      CONSTRUCTION    OF  LAW. 
II.      SCOPE    AND    PURPOSE    OF    LAW. 
III.      SECTIONS    CONSTRUED. 


I.  CONSTRUCTION  OF  LAW. 

In  general — Act  not  self-contradictory. 

( 1 .  The  legislature  can  not  be  charged  with  the  absurdity  of  legalizing 
in  one  section  of  the  Railroad  Commission  Act  that  which  is  expressly 
forbidden  in  other  sections,  and  thus  defeating  one  of  the  main  purposes 
of  the  act.  There  is  no  such  incongruity  in  the  act.  Wisconsin  Coal  Co. 
V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  339,  341. 

Provisions  adopted  from  Interstate  Commerce  Act. 

2.  The  legislature  of  Wisconsin,  in  incorporating  in  ch.  362,  laws  of 
1905,  certain  provisions  contained  in  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act, 
adopted  the  construction  placed  upon  such  provisions  by  the  federal 
supreme  court.  The  provision  of  sec.  1797-3  of  the  Wisconsin  law, 
providing  that  the  charges  made  by  carriers  shall  be  reasonable  and 
prohibiting  unjust  and  unreasonable  charges,  is  substantially  borrowed 
from  sec.  1  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act.  The  provision  of  subd.  c  of 
sec.  1797-4  of  the  Wisconsin  law,  providing  that  the  rates  of  charge 
shown  in  the  printed  tariffs  or  schedules  filed  under  the  act  shall  be  the 
lawful  rates  of  charge,  is  taken  from  sec.  6  of  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Act.  So  much  of  sec.  1797-22  of  the  Wisconsin  law  as  prohibits  the  making 
of  any  charge  other  or  different  from  that  contained  in  the  published 
tariffs,  is,  in  substance,  taken  from  sec.  2  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act. 
In  re  Construction  of  Ch.  362^  Laws  of  1905,  1905,  1  R.  C.  1,  16. 

Rights  under  law. 

3.  "The  rights  of  the  public  and  the  rights  of  the  railroad  under  this 
new  law  (Railroad  Commission  Law)  must  be  ascertained  and  developed 
by  the  Railroad  Commission  slowly  and  laboriously,  moving  from  prece- 
dent to  precedent  as  new  instances  arise,  after  the  manner  of  the  common 
law  courts.  As  was  said  in  Bates  v.  Relyea  et  al.,  1840,  23  Wend.  (N.  Y.), 
336,  341:  'They  (these  instances)  must,  from  the  nature  of  our  legal 
system,  be  the  same  to  the  science  of  law,  as  a  convincing  series  of  experi- 
ments is  to  any  other  branch  of  inductive  philosophy.'  Patience  on  the 
part  of  the  public  and  on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  and  time  will  be 
necessary."  ,  (M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Commission  of 
Wis.,  1908,  136  Wis.  146,  168-169.)  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  C.  1,  63. 

With  respect  to  common  law  duties. 

4.  The  general  powers  vested  in  the  Commission  by  the  Commission 
Act  relates  to  the  regulation  of  services  and  rates  of  railway  companies. 
The  duties  of  such  companies  generally  prescribed  by  the  statute,  which 


212 Railroad  Law. — Construction  of 

is  declaratory  of  the  common  law,  are  contained  in  sec.  1797-3.     Stresen- 
Reuter  et  al.  v.  C.  <fc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  394,  395. 

With  respect  to  common  law  rights. 

5.  The  act  of  1905  (Railroad  Commission  Act)  superseded  the 
common  law  (Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2 
R.  C.  116).  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
774,  778. 

6.  Amendment  (sec.  1797-37m)  to  the  Railroad  Gommission  Act  is 
not  merely  remedial  in  its.  character,  nor  does  it  merely  give  a  remedy 
for  an  existing  right.  It  confers  the  right  and  provides  the  remedy  to 
enforce  it.  Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2 
R.  G.  116;  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  *G.  774,  778. 

With  respect  to  concentration  commodity,  transit  and  other  spe- 
cial rates. 

7.  Under  sec.  1797-6  (ch.  362,  laws  of  1905),  concentration  commodity, 
transit  and  other  special  contract  rates  are  expressly  authorized,  provided 
such  rates  are  open  to  all  shippers  of  a  like  kind  of  traffic  under  similar 
circumstances  and  conditions.  In  re  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1905, 
1  R.  G.  16,  18. 

II.  SGOPE  AND  PURPOSE  OF  LAW. 

Scope  and  purpose  of  Railroad  Commission  Act — In  general. 

8.  The  Railroad  Gommission  Act  was  designed  to  regulate  railroads 
operating  within  the  state  of  Wisconsin  in  the  same  general  manner  that 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  regulates  interstate  carriers  and  trafTic, 
and  much  of  the  phraseology  of  the  former  was  taken  from  the  latter. 
The  general  purpose  of  the  two  acts,  as  far  as  they  are  identical  in  subject 
matter,  is  the  same.  They  were  both  enacted  to  remedy  certain  evils 
which  were  common  in  both  interstate  and  intrastate  transportation. 
City  of  Merrill  v.  Merrill  Ry.  Sc  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  418,  424. 

Scope  and  purpose  of  Interstate  Commerce  Act — In  general. 

9.  It  is  well  understood  that  the  purpose  of  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Law  is  generally  the  same  as  that  of  the  Wisconsin  Railroad  Law,  namely, 
to  regulate  transportation  by  common  carrier.  The  public  interests 
which  are  involved  in  both  state  and  interstate  traffic  are,  in  a  large  way, 
identical,  and  so  far  as  these  interests  are  concerned,  it  is  immaterial 
whether  the  administrative  agencies  which  are  invoked  are  federal  or 
state;  both  agencies  have  their  proper  and  well  defined  sphere  of  activity. 
Duluth-Superior  Milling  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  70,  73. 

With  respect  to  excessive  charges  based  on    the    duly    published 
rate. 

10.  It  was  because  of  the  fact  that,  when  the  schedule  rate  was 
exacted  for  any  shipment  of  freight,  the  shipper  was  without  any  redress 
if  the  same  were  challenged  and  found  upon  investigation  to  be  excessive, 


Railroad  Law. — Sections  construed 213 

the  legislature  enacted  sec.  1797-37/n  of  the  statutes  as  an  amendment 
to  the  original  Railroad  Commission  Act.  Wisconsin  Coal  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  339,  342. 

With  respect  to  overcharges. 

11.  Before  sec.  1797-37m  (laws  1907,  ch.  582)  of  the  Wisconsin 
Statutes  was  amended  by  ch.  136  of  the  laws  of  1909,  the  Railroad  Com- 
mission could  only  authorize  refunds  in  cases  where  the  charges  exacted 
were  in  accordance  with  the  duly  published  and  legal  rates  in  force,  and 
where  they  were  found  upon  complaint  of  a  shipper  to  have  been  either 
unusual  or  exorbitant.  The  addition  of  the  words  erroneous  and  illegal 
broadened  the  scope  of  the  statute  so  as  to  include  all  charges,  whether 
in  conformity  with  the  legal  tariffs  or  otherwise.  Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  597,  599-600. 

With  respect  to  overcharges  exacted  in  violation  of  the  act. 

12.  The  contention  that  the  petitioner  should  first  have  filed  its 
claim  for  a  refund  with  the  carrier  and  waited  ninety  days  for  action 
thereon  in  accordance  with  sec.  32  of  the  Railroad  Commission  Act 
(laws  1905,  ch.  362),  evinces  a  misapprehension  of  the  purpose  and  scope, 
of  such  section  of  the  statutes.  Sec.  32  has  no  application  to  a  claim 
presented  upon  the  ground  that  the  legal  rate  exacted  is  either  unusual 
or  exorbitant,  but  relates  to  overcharges  exacted  in  violation  of  the  act. 
Wisconsin  Coal  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  339,  341-342. 

With  respect  to  reduced  rate   service. 

13.  The  legislature  in  the  enactment  of  sec.  1797-8  has,  we  think, 
wisely  recognized  existing  conditions  and  provided  that  the  wholesale 
principle  might  be  applied  to  the  passenger  trafTic,  provided  no  discrim- 
ination was  practiced  between  individuals.  It  expressed  its  wish,  as  far 
as  it  could  legally  do  so,  to  the  effect  that  it  did  not  desire  such  conditions 
to  be  disturbed.  It  was  the  intent  of  the  legislature  to  prevent  injustice, 
not  to  prescribe  rules  which  would  hamper  the  carriers  in  carrying  on  the 
details  of  their  business  or  prevent  them  from  adopting  reasonable 
methods  for  increasing  it.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  <Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C. 
324,  503. 

III.  SECTIONS  CONSTRUED. 

Sec.  1797,  railroad  companies  not  required  by  law  to  furnish  and  operate 

spur  tracks.     Plowright  Sc  Menzies  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908, 

2  R.  C.  553,  572. 
Sec.   1797-1  to  1797-38,   Railroad   Commission  Law,  effect  on  existing 

rates.     Cityof  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1911, 

6  R.  C.  398,  400. 
Sec.  1797-1  to  1797-38,  superseded  the  common  law.     Connor  Land  <& 

Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  778. 
Sec.  1797-2,  definition  of  the  term  "railroad."     In  re  Appl.  of  Ch.  362, 

Laws  1905  to  Street  Railways,  1906,  1  R.  C.  178,  179. 
Sec.  1797-2,  meaning  of  the  term  "transportation."     Clark  v.  C.  M.  Sz 

St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  733,  734. 


214 Railroad  Law. — Sections  construed 

Sec.  1797-3,  duty  of  street  railway  company  as  to  service  and  facilities. 

City  of  Merrill  v.  Merrill  Ry.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  418,  424. 
Sec.  1797-3,  safety  as  one  of  the  elements  of  reasonably  adequate  service. 

Bradley  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  136,  138. 
Sec.  1797-4,  all  published  rates  in  force  April  1, 1905,  constituted  maximum 

tariffs  up  to  December  31,  1905.     Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v. 

W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  108,  110. 
Sec.  1797-6,  concentration,  commodity,  transit  and  other  special  contract 

rates  permitted  under  certain  conditions.     Plumb  &  Nelson  Co. 

u.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1906,  1  R.  C.  16,  18. 
Sec.    1797-6,   permissible   to   charge   reduced   rates   on   machinery   and 

materials  used  in  construction  of  manufacturing  plants.     In  re 

Rates  on  Construction  Material  for  Mfg.  Plants,   1906«   1   R.   G. 

210,  213. 
Sec.   1797-8,  free  transportation,  when  permissible.     In  re  North.   Wis. 

Farmers'  Assn.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  175. 
Sec.  1797-8,  homeseekers'  tickets  may  be  sold  at  reduced  rates.     In  re 

Construction  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  1905,  1  R.  C.  1,  10. 
Sec.   1797-8,  reduced  rate  service,  railroad  may  furnish  under  certain 

conditions.     Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  324,  503. 
Sec.  1797-9,  subsec.  2,   duty   of  two  or  more  railroads  in  city,  village  or 

town  to  construct,  maintain  and  use  an  adequate  union  station. 

McMillan  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  227,  233. 
Sec.  1797-11,  interchange  of  traffic,  legal  obligation  of  railroad  companies. 

Clark  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  590,  594,  733,  734. 
Sec.  1797-11,  interchange  of  traffic,  private  tracks,  Commission's  control. 

City  of  Ashland  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co..  1915,  15  R.  C. 

816.  820. 
Sec.  1797-11/71,  construction  of  spur  track,  intervening  petitioners  may  not 

be  heard  in  proceedings  relating  thereto.     Jefferson  Ice   Co.   v. 

C.  &  AT.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  431,  439. 
Sec.  1797-11/71,  definition  of  statutory  term  "practically  indispensable." 

Hurst  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  283,  286. 
Sec.  1797-1 1/n,  industrial  tracks,  to  be  constructed  by  railroad  company 

at  expense  of  industry  seeking  same.     Osceola  Mill  &  Elev.  Co.  v.' 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  416,  419. 
Sec.  1797-11/77,  switch  connections,  spur  track  constructed  as  integral  part 

of  railroad  system.      Eden  Ind.  Lime  <Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &.  N.  W.  R. 

Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  793. 
Sec.  1797-12,  complaint  to  compel  investigation  by  Commission.    City  of 

Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  Sz  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  398,  400. 
Sec.  1797-12,  power  of  Commission  to  regulate  rates.  Commission  not 

limited  by  contents  of  petitioner's    complaint.      Ringle  et  al.  v. 

C.  M.  iSc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  598,  599. 
Sec.  1797-12  and  1797-28,  power  of  Commission  to  prevent  rate  wars  be- 
tween competing  carriers.     In  re  Appl.  Milw.  Sc  Fox  R.  Val.  R. 

Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  466,  474. 
Sec.  1797-12e,  Commission,  jurisdiction  of,  over  railroad  crossings.    Village 

of  ML  Horeb  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  495,  498. 


Railroad  Law. — Sections  construed 215 

Sec.  1797-12e,  railroad  crossings,  protection  of.     Town  of  Lucas  v.  C.  St. 

P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  703,  704.      , 
Sec.  1797-12e,  power  of  Commission  to  require  an  alteration  in  a  crossing 

not  at  grade  upon  a  petition  brought  by  the  common  council  of  a 

city.    City  of  Monroe  v.  C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  176, 

178. 
Sec.  1797-12e,  railroad  crossings,  construction  and  maintenance  of  viaduct 

and  approach,  apportionment  of  cost.     City  of  Superior  v.  N.  P. 

R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  674,  682. 
Sec.  1797-12e,  railroad  crossing,  power  of  Commission  to  order  construc- 
tion.    Town  of  Remington  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C. 

609,  610. 
Sec.  1797-12o,  duty  of  railroad  company  to  construct  fences  for  protection 

of  live  stock.    Dent  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  d:  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C. 

203,  204. 
Sec.  1797-14,  joint  rates,  division  of  among  connecting  carriers.     In  re 

Appl.  \y.-G.  B.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  291,  294. 
Sec.  1797-14,  sub./,  power  of  Commission  to  order  joint  rates.    Plumb  Sc 

Nelson  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  19,  24. 
Sec.  1797-28,  power  of  Commission  to  authorize  emergency  rates.    In  re 

Construction  Ch.  362,  Laws  1905,  1905,  1  R.  C.  1,  6. 
Sec.  1797-31,  violation  of  the  law,  investigation  by  Commission.     In  re 

Crossing  on  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  in  Town  of  Gale,  1914,  14  R.  C.  445,  447. 
Sec.  1797-32,  Commission  has' no  jurisdiction  over  claims  against  carriers. 

Hodges  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  300,  302. 
Sec.  1797-35,  filing  of  rates  with  Commission,  what  constitutes  published 

rate.    Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  W.  R.  C.  Co.,  1906,  1   R.   C. 

108,  115. 
Sec.  1797-37/n,  reparation,  law  not  retroactive.    Oshkosh  Legging  .Tool  Co. 

V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  116;  City  of  Superior  v.  N.  P.  R. 

Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  126,  128;  Dells  Paper  &  Pulp  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M. 

&  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  129,  130;  Chippewa  Lbr.  &  Boom  Co.  v. 

W.C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  607,  609. 
Sec.  1797-37/77,  reparation,  limitation  of  statute.     Menasha  Paper  Co.  v. 

W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  300,  301. 
Sec.  1797-37/77,  reparation,  limitation  of  the  statute,  jurisdiction  of  courts 

in  cases  involving  overcharges  upon  which  the  limitation  of  the 

statute  has  run.     Connor  Land  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  776. 
Sec.   1797-37/77,  reparation,  proceedings  for  recovery,  person  aggrieved 

■must  petition  Commission.     Wausau  Adv.  Assn.  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R. 

Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  433,  438;  1914,  13  R.  C..772,  774. 
Sec.  1797-37/77,  reparation,  reduction  of  rate  not  to  be  construed  as  an  ad- 
mission of  prior  unreasonableness.    Steven  &  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C. 

S:t.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  131,  134;  Northern  Wood  Co.  v. 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et.  al.,  1911,8  R.  C.  62,  63;  Wis.  Lakes 

Ice  &  Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  62,  63. 
Sec.  1797-37/77,  showing  of  damages  not  necessary  to  secure  refund  under 

statute.    Flambeau  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913, 

11  R.  C.  699,  702. 


216 Railroad  Law. — Sections  construed 

Sec.  1797-43,  power  of  Commission  respecting  certificate  of  public  con- 
venience and  necessity.    In  re  AppL  Milw.  Sc  Fox  R.  Val.  R.  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  G.  466,  475. 

Sec.  1797-51,  certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity,  power  of 
Commission  respecting  certificate.     In  re  AppL  Great  N.  R.  Co., 

^^         1909,  3  R.  C.  266,  280. 

Sec.  1797-56,  apportionment  of  expense  of  railroad  crossing  among  rail- 
roads concerned.  In  re  AppL  W.  &  N.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
362,  369. 

Sec.  1801,  jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  train  service.  Callen  et  aL  v. 
C.M.iSc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  581,  583. 

Sec.  1801,  train  service,  adequacy  of.    Schlosstein  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co., 

1911,  8  R.  C.  242,  246. 

Sec.  1802,  railroad  companies  not  required  by  law  to  furnish  and  operate 

spur  tracks.    Plowright  &  Menzies  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2 

R.  C.  553,  572. 
Sec.  1802,  switch  connections,  construction  of  spur  track,  compulsory 

connection  with  railroad  at  the  instance  of  private  parties.    Eden 

Ind.  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  794. 
Sec.  1802a,  warehouse  sites  on  railroad  right  of  way.    Rust  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 

S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  251,  252. 
Sec.  1802a,  warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way  within  yard  limits  of 

station  or  terminal.    Roberts  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R. 

Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  207,  211. 
Sec.  1802c,  track  connections  to  facilitate  interchange  of  traffic  between 

railroad  companies.    City  of  Ashland  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 

1915,  15  R.  C.  816,  820. 
Sec.  1809,  speed  of  trains,  regulation  of  speed  within  a  municipality.    Tate 

.V.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  348,  349. 
Sec.  1809y,  locomotive  headlights,  merits  of,  in  connection  with  statutory 

requirements.    In  re  Invest.  Locomotive  Headlights,  1912,  11  R.  C. 

137,  138. 
Sec.  1810,  railroad  company  required  to  provide  suitable  and  convenient 

farm  crossings.     Von  Rueden  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15 

R.  C.  272,  274. 
Sec.  1831,  operation  of  branch  as  common  carrier,  company  under  obliga- 
tion to  operate  regardless  of  failure  of  directors  to  take  preliminary 

steps  provided  by  statute.    Meyer  v.  Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co.  et  aL,  1911, 

7  R.  C.  401,  406. 
Sec.  1831a,  spur  track  constructed  as  integral  part  of  railroad  system. 

Eden  Ind.  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 

788,  794. 
Sec.  1831a,  railroads,  right  of  way  and  other  interests  in  land,  rights  in 

and  use  of  highways  and  public  places.     Farmers  Store  Co.  v.  C. 

St.  P.  M.  <fc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3.R.  C.  42,  50. 
Sec.  1832,  alteration  of  route,  terminus  defined.     Rib  River  Land  Co.  v. 

Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  aL,  1907,  1  R.  C.  739,  765. 
Sec.  1832,  change  of  line,  construction  of  cut-off  and  abandonment  of  old 

line.    Hart  et  aL  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  46.3, 

464. 


Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment  fr2M 

Sec.  1836,  railroad  shall  restore  to  usefulness  any  highway  crossed  by  its 
line.  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12 
R.  C.  701,  705;  Town  of  Menomonee  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14 
R.  C.  549,  551. 

Sec.  1897,  railroad  companies  not  required  by  law  to  furnish  and  operate 
spur  tracks.  Plowright  &  Menzies  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2 
R.  C.  553,  572. 

RAILROADS. 

See  also  Carriers;  Connecting  Carrieps;  Interurban  Railways; 
Station  Facilities;  Street  Railways;  Switch  Connections; 
Train  Service. 

Discrimination  as  between  localities,  see  Discrimination,  49-52,  85. 
as  between  shippers,  see  Discrimination,  66-84. 

Paralleling  of  railroads,  purpose  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity  Law 
to  prevent  needless  paralleling  of  railroads,  see  Certificate  of  Pub- 
lic Convenience  and  Necessity,  3,  6. 


I.      CONSTRUCTION.   MAINTENANCE   AND   EQUIPMENT. 

a.  In  general.  d.   Culverts. 

b.  Crossings — railroad  by  high-  e.   Interlocking  plants. 

way.  f.   Locomotive  headlights. 

c.  Crossings — Railroad  by  rail-  g.  Tell  tales. 

road. 

II.      CONTROL  AND   REGULATION, 
a.  In  general. 

III.  OPERATION. 

a.  Filing  of  rates.  c.    Rights  of  common  carriers. 

b.  Requirements  as  to  service  and  d.   Speed  of  trains. 

facilities.  e.    Snipping  directions. 

IV.  RIGHT  OF  WAY  AND   OTHER  INTERESTS  IN   LAND. 


ACCOUNTING. 
See  Accounting,  127-137. 

I.  CONSTRUCTION,  MAINTENANCE  AND  EQUIPMENT. 

a.    IN   GENERAL. 

Abandonment  of  service  or  equipment. 

1.  It  is  not  within  the  power  of  a  railway  company,  under  the  provi- 
sions of  subdiv.  3,  sec.  1828,  Statutes  of  1898,  to  lease  or  discontinue  the 
use  of  any  part  of  its  property  that  is  necessary  to  enable  it  to  perform  its 
duty  to  the  public  as  a  common  carrier.  Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.  G. 
N.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1907,  1  R.  C.  619,  635. 

Construction  of  railroad — Approval  of  specifications. 

2.  Application  for  approval  of  specification  for  construction  of  railroad 
and  for  order  determining  manner  of  crossing  the  tracks  of  other  railroads. 
Held:  That  the  specification  submitted  meets  the  requirement  of  the 
statutes  and  the  regulations  of  the  Commission.     Crossings  and  safety 


218    Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment 

devices  ordered  as  stated  in  the  orders.  In  re  AppL  W.  <Sc  N.  M.  R.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  362;  In  re  AppL  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
386. 

b.    CROSSINGS — RAILROAD   BY   HIGHWAY. 

Alteration  of. 

3.  For  the  sake  of  public  safety,  the  present  highway  should  be  altered 
so  as  to  cross  the  track  at  right  angles.  The  Commission  assumes  that  if 
the  proceedings  of  the  town  board  to  lay  out  the  highway  over  the  point 
in  question  should  be  declared  invalid,  new  proceedings  will  be  instituted. 
Town  ofElcho  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  796. 

4.  The  respondent  is  ordered  to  construct  and  maintain  a  highway, 
in  the  manner  specified,  within  its  right  of  way  limits.  As  the  alterations 
ordered  are  necessary  for  compliance  with  sec.  1299/z-l  of  the  Statutes, 
the  entire  cost  is  assessed  against  the  respondent.  Town  of  Campbell  v. 
C.  B.  Sz  Q.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  21. 

5.  Railroad  ordered  to  raise  level  of  track  and  highway.  Town  of 
Richmond  v.  W.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  309. 

6.  The  G.  &  N.  W.  Ry.  Go.  is  ordered  to  render  the  crossing  safe  and 
suitable  for  public  travel,  to  submit  to  the  Commission  for  approval  such 
plans  and  specifications  for  the  changes  required.  Town  of  Westport  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  218. 

Blockading  of  crossings  by  trains. 

7.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  there  is  serious  abuse  in  the 
blockading  of  crossings  by  trains.  If  such  blockading  were  prevalent, 
the  city  has  the  power  to  prevent  it  under  the  General  Charter  Law  (sec. 
925-52,  subd.  31).  Citij  of  Green  Bay  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12 
R.  G.  383. 

Construction  of.  ^ 

8.  Whether  the  necessary  steps  were  taken  to  lay  out  the  highway  in 
the  manner  prescribed  by  statute  can  only  be  determined  by  the  courts. 
The  town  supervisors  are  the  judges,  under  the  statute,  of  the  necessity* 
for  the  highway.  The  Commission,  however,  may  determine  the  manner 
and  mode  of  crossing  prior  to  the  actual  establishment  of  th^  highway 
and  independently  of  the  question  whether  the  highway  has  been  law- 
fully established  or  not.  (Wis.  St.  sec.  1797-12e.)  Town  of  Gillett  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  535,  536. 

9.  The  Commission  can  take  no  action  in  the  matter  of  the  crossings 
desired  by  the  petitioner  at  Cook,  Wood  and  Church  sts.  until  the  streets 
named  have  been  legally  opened  by  the  village  over  the  railroad  right  of 
way  and  petition  is  made  to  the  Commission  for  the  determination  of  the 
mode  and  manner  of  crossing,  as  provided  in  sec.  1797-12e  of  the  Statutes. 
Village  of  Unity  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  430. 

10.  The  respondent  is  ordered  to  construct,  at  the  point  in  question, 
a  suitable  grade  crossing  approximately  at  right  angles  to  its  track.  The 
petitioner  shall  bear  50  per  cent  and  respondent  50  per  cent  of  the  cost  as 
determined  by  the  Commission.  Town  of  Elcho  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co,, 
1914,  14  R.  C.  796. 


Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment      219 

11.  The  respondent  is  ordered  to  install  and  maintain  at  the  farm 
crossing,  located  about  three  miles  west  of  Eagle  and  adjacent  to  peti- 
tioner's property,  suitable  cattle  guards  and  wing  fences.  Von  Rueden 
V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  272. 

12.  Railroad  company  ordered  to  construct  a  grade  crossing  in  the 
town  of  Superior,  Douglas  Co.  Cost  apportioned  40  per  cent  to  peti- 
tioner' and  60  per  cent  to  respondent.  Town  of  Superior  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  300. 

Public  necessity. 

13.  The  question  of  the  public  necessity  of  a  proposed  crossing  is  to 
be  determined  by  the  municipality  in  interest  and  the  Commission  is 
without  jurisdiction  in  the  matter.  To  hold  otherwise  would  in  effect 
place  the  Commission  in  the  position  of  dictating  a  municipality's  high- 
way development.  The  respondent  is  ordered  to  construct  a  suitable 
grade  crossing  at  the  point  in  question,  furnishing  all  necessary  material 
and  labor  and  performing  all  necessary  work  in  fulfilling  the  provisions  of 
the  order.  The  petitioner  is  to  pay  the  respondent  50  per  cent  of  the 
cost.     Town  of  Remington  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  609. 

Elimination  of.  ,, 

14.  Crossings  were  ordered  to  be  eliminated  in:  In  re  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
Crossing  near  Camp  Douglas,  1913,  12  R.  C.  524;  In  re  Barron^s  Crossing 
in  Town  of  Almena,  1914,  14  R.  C.  128. 

Mode  and  manner  of  crossing — Determination  of. 

15.  Although  the  petition  does  not  follow  the  technical  wording  of 
the  law  (sec.  1 797-1 2e)  and  state  "that  public  safety  requires  the  deter- 
mination" of  the  mode  and  manner  of  the  crossing  in  question,  the  allega- 
tions make  it  clear  that  the  power  of  the  Commission  is  invoked  to  pro- 
vide for  the  requirements  of  public  safety.  The  fact  that  a  particular 
mode  of  crossing  is,  in  a  given  instance,  the  only  practicable  one,  does  not 
preclude  the  Commission  from  acting  to  determine  the  mode  and  manner 
of  crossing,  for  other  methods  may  be  possible  although  less  suitable  to 
the  needs  of  the  situation  under  consideration.  Village  of  Mt.  Horeb  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  495,  498. 

16.  The  mode  and  manner  of  the  crossing  of  the  respondent's  tracks 
by  the  proposed  highway  can  be  determined  independently  of  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  highway  has  been  lawfully  established  or  not,  for  the 
actual  laying  out  of  a  highway  is  not  a  condition  precedent  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Commission.  Town  of  Gillett  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R. 
C.  535,  536;  Town  of  Elcho  v.  C.  cfc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  796,  798. 

17.  Section  1797-12e  of  the  statutes  imposes  upon  the  Commission 
the  duty  of  determining  the  mode  and  manner  of  a  proposed  crossing  in 
the  interest  of  public  safety  upon  petition  of  the  municipal  authorities  or 
the  railway  company.  It  also  requires  the  Commission  to  apportion  the 
cost  of  such  crossing  between  the  railway  company  and  the  municipality 
in  interest.  Town  of  Elcho  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  796,  801; 
Town  of  Superior  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  300. 


220    Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment 

b.   CROSSINGS — RAILROAD   BY   HIGHWAY. — Continued. 

Mode   and   manner   of  crossing — Determination   of  in   particular 
cases. 

18.  The  mode  and  manner  of  crossing  determined  in :  M.  S.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.  V.  Town  of  Lisbon  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  592;  M.  S.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  v. 
Town  of  Lebanon,  1910,  6  R.  C.  424. 

Necessity  for  highway  and  crossing. 

19.  Under  the  statute  the  town  supervisors  are  the  judges  of  the 
necessity  of  the  laying  out  of  a  highway.  Town  of  Gillett  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  535,  536. 

Protection  of  — Annunciators. 

20.  The  installation  of  annunciators  ordered:  Fall  Creek  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  310;  Village  of  New  Holstein  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1909.  4  R.  G.  364;  City  of  Marinette  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  455;  City  of  Oshkosh  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  75; 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  353;  City 
of  Lady  smith  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  554;  Village  of 
Plover  V.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  727;  City  of  Ripon  u.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  100;  Village  of  Waunakee  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  380;  Village  of  Spencer  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1913, 12  R.  G.  525;  City  of  Ft.  Atkinson  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913, 13  R.  G. 
69;  Village  of  Merrillan  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  315; 
City  ofBoscobel  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  296. 

Automatic  alarm. 

21.  Installation  of  automatic  alarm  ordered:  Fall  Creek  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  310;  Village  of  Luxemburg  v.  K.  G.  B.  Sc 
W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  244;  Village  of  Fall  River  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  G.  778;  Town  of  Wauzeka  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912, 10  R.  G. 
426;  City  of  Beaver  Dam  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  474. 

Automatic  alarm  with  illuminated  sign. 

22.  Railroad  ordered  to  install  automatic  alarm  with  illuminated 
sign  for  night  indication:   Town  of  Wauwatosa  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911, 

7  R.  G.  451;  453;  625;  Village  of  Marathon  City  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911, 

8  R.  G.  28;  In  re  Richfield  Crossing  Accident  on  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.,  1911, 

8  R.  G.  287;  In  re  So.  Commercial  St.  Crossing  at  Neenah,  1912,  8  R.  G. 
463;  In  re  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  Crossing  near  New  Lisbon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  511; 
Cunningham  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  513;  In  re  C.  St.  P. 
M.  Sc  0.  R.  Crossing  near  Columbia  Sta.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  516;  In  re  Crossing 
near  Calvert  on  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  519;  In  re  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Crossing  near  Camp  Douglas,  1912,  9  R.  G.  328;  In  re  Mt.  Morris 
Ave.  Crossing  at  Wautoma,  1912,  9  R.  G.  365;  In  re  Division  St.  Crossing 
in  Dodgeville,  1912,  9  R.  G.  367;  In  re  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Crossing  near  Milton 
Jd.,  1912,  9 R.  G.  379;  Inre  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Crossing  in  Beaver  Dam,  1912, 

9  R.  G.  381;  In  re  C.  Sc  N.'W.  R.  Crossing  near  Dodgeville,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
520;  In  re  Crossing  on  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  525;  In  re 
Crossing  near  Schleisingerville,  1912,  9  R.  G.  528;  Town  of  Buffalo  v. 
M.  S.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  538;  City  of  Columbus  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 


Railroads. — Construction,  mainienance  and  equipment     221 

R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  576;  Town  of  Mentor  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  C.  434;  Town  of  Albany  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G. 
483;  Town  of  Wayne  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  493; 
Miller  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  499;  Town  of  Salem  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  510;  In  re  Invest.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Cross- 
ing, Yolo,  1912,  10  R.  C.  528;  Streater  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 

1912,  10  R.  G.  531;  Wolf  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co":,  1912, 10  R.  G. 
615;  Village  of  Mt.  Horeb  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  623;  Town 
of  Hewitt  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  S:  0.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  79;  Town  of  Byron  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  95;  Town  of  Salem  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  322;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  353,  362;  Town  of  Waterford  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  436;  Happel  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 

1913,  11  R.  G.  575;  Town  of  Richfield  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913, 

11  R.  G.  586;  Town  of  Lucas  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
592;  Town  of  Stanton  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  595; 
Town  of  Wilton  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  598;  Town  of  Merton 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  606;  Village  of  Thorp  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  609;  Town- of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  615;  ToV)n  of  Almena  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  621;  Village  of  Elk  Mound  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  654;  Town  of  Pewaukee  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11 
R.  G.  658;  Town  of  Beaver  Dam  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
662;  Town  of  Somerset  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  730; 
City  of  Marshfield  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  59;  City  of 
Ripon  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  100;  Town  of  Ashippun  v. 
M.  S.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  119;  Town  of  Lyndon  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  251;  Town  of  Howard  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  254;  Town  of  New  Berlin  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al, 
1913,  12  R.  G.  358;  Town  of  Oshkosh  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al, 
1913,  12  R.  G.  372;  Town  of  Millston  v.  C.  St  P.M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913, 

12  I^.G.  400;  Village  of  Cambria  et  al  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12 
R.  G.  501;  Town  of  St  Croix  Falls  v.  M.  St  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,. 1913. 
12  R.  G.  529;  Town  of  Deerfield  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
676;  Town  of  Oakfield  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  683;  City 
of  Ft.  Atkinson  v.  C.  Sb  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  69;  Village  of 
Baldwin  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  76;  Town  of  Fitchburg 
v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  403;  Town  of  La  Prairie  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1913,  13  R.  G.  440;  Town  of  Madison  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  608; 
Town  of  Montrose  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  613;  Town  of  Cleveland  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  729;  City  of  Monroe  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  118;  Village  of  M err  Ulan  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914, 14  R.  G. 
315;  Town  of  Sullivan  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  320;  In  re  C.  M. 
Sc  St.  P.  R.  Crossings  in  Cross  Plains,  1914,  14  R.  G.  343;  Town  of  Howard 
V.  M.  St  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  433;  Town  of  Wien  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  435;  Town  of  Richmond  v.W.  Sc  N.  R.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  546;  In  re  Hanchett  Crossing  in  Town  of  Blooming  Grove, 
1914,  15  R.  G.  45;  Town  of  Madison  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  108; 
In  re  Marinette  Ave.  Crossing  in  Marinette,  1914,  15  R.  G.  200;  City  of 


222    Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment 

Ft.  Atkinson  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  250;  Town  of  Amherst 
V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  494;  Village  of  Cadott  v. 
M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  596;  Town  of  Wheaton  v. 
M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  667;  City  of  New  Richmond 
V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  752;  Town  of  Fairchild  v.  C. 
St.  P.  M.  &'  0.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  755. 

h.    CROSSINGS— RAILROAD   BY   HIGHWAY. — Continued. 

Protection  of — -Automatic  flagman. 

23.  The  respondent  is  ordered  to  install  and  maintain  an  "Automatic 
Flagman"  or  some  other  suitable  automatic  device  for  protecting  travelers 
both  by  day  and  by  night,  plans  to  be  submitted  for  approval.  Town  of 
Geneva  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  481. 

Cattle  guards. 

24.  Cattle  guards  ordered  installed:  Von  Rueden  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  272.    ♦ 


Choice  of  methods. 

25.  In  determining  which  of  several  proposed  methods  of  crossing 
protection  shall  be  adopted  the  effect  of  each  upon  probable  future  con- 
ditions may  properly  be  considered.  Whenever  the  choice  of  one  method 
will  completely  eliminate  the  dangerous  features  of  a  crossing  without 
imposing  undue  hardship  upon  the  interested  parties,  that  method  should 
be  used.  Town  of  Maple  Grove  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12 
R.  C.  686,  687-689. 

Discontinuance  of  flying  switches. 


26.  Railroad  ordered  to  discontinue  making  flying  switches  at 
crossings:  City  of  Boscobel  v.  C.  M.  S:  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  423; 
City  ofMarshfield  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  59. 

Flagmen. 

27.  Railroad  ordered  to  place  flagmen  at  crossings:  City  of  Marinette 
v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  455;  City  of  Oshkosh  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  291;  In  re  So.  Commercial  St.  Crossing  at 
Neenah,  1912,  8  R.  G.  463;  Blackman  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
9  R.  C.  50;  In  re  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Crossing  at  Beaver  Dam,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
523;  City  of  Columbus  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  576;  /n  re 
Invest.  Division  St.  Crossing  in  Dodgeville,  1912,  11  R.  G.  151;  City  of 
Sparta  v.  C.  S:  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  165;  Town  of  Salem  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  322;  City  of  Lady  smith  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  325;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  M.  S:  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  al.',  1913,  11  R.  G.  344;  350;  353;  362;  City  of  Ladysmith  v.  M.  St.  P.Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  554;  Village  of  Thorp  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  609;  Town  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  615;  Town  of  Farmington  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  624;  Village  of  Elk  Mound  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  654;  Village  of  Plover  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
727;  City  of  Marshfield  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  59; 
City  ofRipon  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913, 12  R.  G.  100;  Town  of  Millston 


Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment      223 

u.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  400;  Village  of  Spencer  v.  M. 
St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  525;  Village  of  Cedar  Grove  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  712;  City  of  Ft.  Atkinson  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  69;  In  re  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Crossing  in  Eau 
Claire,  1913,  13  R.  C.  74;  Village  of  Baldwin  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 

1913,  13  R.  G.  76;  City  of  Grand  Rapids  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  395;  Town  of  La  Prairie  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  440; 
In  re  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Crossing  in  Eau  Claire,  1914,  13  R.  G.  628;  In  re 
Drummond  Road  Crossing  in  Eau  Claire,  1914,  14  R.  G.  104;  In  re 
Vine  St.  Crossing  in  Marshfield,  1914,  14  R.  G.  110;  City  of  Monroe  v. 
I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  118;  Village  of  Merrillan  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  'Sc 
0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  315;  Town  of  Sullivan  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  320;  In  re  Marinette  Ave.  Crossing  in  Marinette,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  200;  City  of  Ft.  Atkinson  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  250; 
City  of  Boscobel  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  296;  City  of  New 
Richmond  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  752. 

Gates. 

28.  Railroad  ordered  to  install  and  operate  gates  at  crossings:  City 
of  Racine  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  354;  City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  515;  1913,  11  R.  G.  344,  350,  353; 
In  re  Invest.  Aldrich  St.  Crossing,  Milwaukee,  1912,  11  R.  G.  147;  City  of 
Milwaukee  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  360;  In  re  Invest.  Hartland 
Crossing  on  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  432;  City  ofLadysmith  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  554;  City  of  Oconomowoc  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  84;  Village  of  Waunakee  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  380;  City  of  Racine  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  407. 


Improvemeiit  of  highway  approaches. 

29.  Railroad  ordered  to  improve  approaches  to  crossings:  Rose  v. 
Roddis  Lhr.  Sc  Veneer  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  307;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  513;  In  re  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Crossing  near 
Columbia  Sta.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  516;  In  re  Crossing  near  Calvert  on  C.  B.  Sc 
Q.  R.  et  al.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  522;  In  re  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Crossing  near  Camp 
Douglas,  1912,  9  R.  G.  328;  In  re  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Crossing  near  Dodgeville, 

1912,  9  R.  G.  520;  In  re  Crossing  near  Schleisingerville,  1912,  9  R.  G.  528; 
Town  of  Wauzeka  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  426;  Town  of 
Wayne  v.  M.  St.  P.  S:  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  493;  Town  of  Hewitt 
v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  cfc  0.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  79;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  M. 
Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  350;  353;  Town  of  Lucas  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  592;  Town  of  Polk  v.  M.  St.  P.  cfc  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  589;  Town  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1913,  11  R.  G.  615;  Town  of  Farmington  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  624;  Village  of  Elk  Mound  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R,  G.  654;  Town  of  Beaver  Dam  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  662;  Town  of  St.  Joseph  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
737;  City  of  Marshfield  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  59; 
Town  of  Fond  du  Lac  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  123;  Town  of 
Lyndon  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  251;  Town  of  Howard  v. 


224     Railroads. — Construction,^ maintenance  and  equipment 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  254;  Village  of  Cambria  et  al. 
V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  501;  Village  of  Unity  v.  M.  St.  P. 
&  S:  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  430;  Town  of  Madison  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co., 
1914,  13  R.  C.  608;  City  of  Monroe  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  118; 
In  re  Hanchett  Crossing  in  Town  of  Blooming  Grove,  1914,  14  R.  G.  45; 
City  of  Monroe  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  176;  In  re  Crossing 
on  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  in  Town  of  Gale,  1914,  14  R.  G.  445;  Town  of  Menomonee 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  549;  Dent  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  203;  Town  of  Marshfield  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  207. 

b.    CROSSINGS — RAILROAD   BY   HIGHWAY. — Continued. 

Protection  of — Limitation  of  car  storage  area. 

30.  Railroad  ordered  to  limit  car  storage  area  for  protection  of 
crossing:  City  of  Grand  Rapids  v.  G.  B.  <fc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
395. 

Limitation  of  speed  of  trains. 

31.  Railroad  ordered  to  limit  speed  of  trains  while  passing  over 
crossing:  Evarts  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  712;  City  of 
Boscobel  V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  423;  Village  of  Elk  Mound 
V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  654;  City  of  Grand  Rapids  v. 
G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  395. 


Removal  of  obstructions  to  view. 

32.  Obstructions  to  view  of  crossing  and  trains  ordered  removed: 
In  re  Richfield  Crossing  Accident  on  C.  M^Sc  St.  P.  R.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  287; 
In  re  So.  Commercial  St.  Crossing  at  Neenah,  1912,  8  R.  G,  463;  In  re  C. 
M.  Sc  St.  P.  Crossing  near  New  Lisbon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  511 ;  Town  of  Pewaukee 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  658;  Town  of  Friendship  v.  C.  <Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  733;  Town  of  Fredonia  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  516;  Town  of  Madison  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  608; 
Village  of  M err  Ulan  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  315;  In  re 
Crossing  on  C.  cfc  N.  W.  R.  in  Town  of  Gale,  1914,  14  R.  G.  445;  In  re 
Hanchett  Crossing  in  Town  of  Blooming  Grove,  1914,  15  R.  G.  45;  Town  of 
Marshfield  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  207;  Town  of 
Richmond  v.  W.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  309;  Town  of  Amherst  v. 
M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  494;  Town  of  Fairchild  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  755. 

Signboard. 


33.  Petitioner  alleged  that  no  sign  board  was  maintained  at  the 
crossing.  A  sign  board  containing  the  inscription  "look  out  for  the 
cars"  has  been  erected  since  the  complaint  was  made  so  the  requirement 
of  sec.  1809,  Stat,  of  1898,  has  been  comphed  with  in  this  regard.  Rose  v. 
Roddis  Lbr.  <Sc  Veneer  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  307. 

Stopping  of  trains. 

34.  Railroad  ordered  to  stop  trains  at  crossing:  In  re  Invest. 
Crossing  near  Calvert  on  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  et  al.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  159;  In  re 


Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment      225 

C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  Crossing  in  Eau  Claire,  1914,  13  R.  C.  628;  City  of  Monroe 
V.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  118. 

When  necessary. 

35.  In  determining  whether  a  crossing  is  dangerous  to  pubUc  travel, 
the  important  considerations  are  the  physical  surroundings,  such  as  the 
obstructions  to  vision,  the  grade  of  highway,  the  angle  of  crossing, 
auditory  conditions,  etc.,  and  the  frequency  and  speed  of  train  movements 
over  the  crossing.  If,  upon  an  examination  of  these  conditions,  the  cross- 
ing is  found  to  be  dangerous,  protection  should  be  afforded  even  though 
the  highway  traffic  is  very  small.  The  element  of  highway  traffic  becomes 
important  only  as  a  guide  to  the  nature  of  the  protection  necessary. 
Town  of  Wilton  u.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  598,  602. 

36.  If  the  life  of  one  person  is  necessarily  jeopardized  by  a  highway 
crossing,  that  crossing  is  "unsafe  and  dangerous  to  human  life"  and 
should  be  protected.  Town  of  Wilton  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11 
R.  C.  598,  603. 

37.  The  protection  of  a  crossing  which  is  rendered  dangerous  by  the 
physical  surroundings  should  not  be  delayed  because  of  the  fact  that  no 
serious  accidents  have  occurred  there.  Town  of  New  Berlin  v.  C.  cfc  N. 
W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  12  R.  G.  358,  361. 

38.  When  no  legal  highway  crossing  exists  at  a  designated  point,  a 
railroad  company  is  not,  under  the  statutes,  under  any  obligation  to 
provide  cattle  guards  or  other  crossing  facilities  for  its  protection.  Town 
of  Richfield  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  623,  624. 

Relocation  of  crossing. 

39.  The  legislature  of  1913  (ch.  603,  laws  1913)  empowered  the 
Gommission  to  order  the  closing  of  a  grade  crossing  and  the  substitution 
of  another  therefor  at  grade,  if  found  necessary  in  the  interest  of  public 
safety.  In  re  Barron's  Crossing  in  the  Town  of  Almena,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
128,  129. 

40.  The  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Go.  is  ordered  to  change  the  location 
of  the  crossing  in  the  manner  specified  by  the  Gommission,  to  pay  the 
town  board  of  the  town  of  Osceola  $300  and  furnish  100  cubic  yards  of 
gravel,  if  required.  The  town  board  is  ordered  to  legally  close  and 
abandon  part  of  the  present  highway,  to  furnish  the  right  of  way,  and  to 
do  the  grading  for  the  new  highway  in  accordance  with  the  Gommission's 
specification.  In  re  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Crossing  near  Dresser  Jet., 
1912,  9  R.  G.  339,  341. 

41.  Each  of  the  two  crossings  under  consideration  is  dangerous. 
The  interests  of  all  will  be  best  subserved  by  relocating  the  highway. 
The  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Go.  is  therefore  ordered  to  construct,  and 
maintain  for  a  period  of  three  years,  a  suitable  highway  connecting  the 
Rochester  road  and  Front  street,  to  acquire  the  land  necessary  therefor, 
and  to  enlarge  the  subway  on  Front  street,  plans  to  be  submitted.  The 
portion  of  the  Rochester  road  lying  within  the  railway  right  of  way  is  to  be 
closed.     In  re  Crossings  near  Mukwonago,  1913,  13  R.  G.  32. 

42.  Public  safety  requires  the  relocation  of  the  highway.  The  com- 
pany is  therefore  ordered:  (1)  to  construct  and  maintain  for  a  period  of 


226     Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance   and   equipment 

three  years  a  highway,  as  specified,  connecting  the  crossings;  (2)  to  provide 
suitable  private  crossings  at  these  points  for  the  use  of  owners  of  property 
south  of  the  railroad;  and  (3)  to  close  the  present  crossings  to  public 
travel.     In  re  C.  B.  <&  Q.  R.  Crossings  near  Cassville,  1913,  13  R.  C.  86. 

43.  The  relocation  of  the  highway  is  necessary  for  public  safety. 
It  is  ordered:  (1)  that  the  railway  company  construct,  as  specified,  a  new- 
crossing  and  a  new  highway  connecting  this  crossing  with  the  existing 
highway.  The  town  of  Almena,  upon  the  completion  of  the  work  shall 
pay  to  the  railway  company  the  actual  cost  of  the  land  acquired  for 
relocating  the  highway,  all  other  costs  to  be  borne  by  the  railway  company. 
In  re  Barron's  Crossing  in  the  Town  of  Almena,  1914,  14  R.  C.  128. 

44.  Respondent  is  ordered  to  construct  a  new  crossing  at  grade 
about  470  feet  northwest  of  the  second  Schulenberg  crossing  and  relocate 
the  highway  as  specified.  In  re  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  Crossings  in  Cross  Plains 
1914,  14  R.  C.  343. 

b.    CROSSINGS — RAILROAD   BY   HIGHWAY.— Continued. 

Restoration  and  maintenance  of  highway. 

45.  The  facts  presented  show  that  the  highway  crossing  involved 
was  not  restored  to  its  former  state  of  usefulness  within  the  meaning  of 
sec.  1836,  Statutes  of  1898,  and  the  respondent  railway  company  should 
proceed  to  place  said  crossing  and  the  approaches  thereto  in  a  proper 
state  of  repair.     Rose  v.  Roddis  Lbr.  &  Veneer  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  307. 

46.  The  bridges  in  question  form  a  part  of  the  approaches  to  the  cross- 
ings over  the  railroad  tracks  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  respondent  to 
maintain  such  bridges  so  that  the  same  will  be  safe  and  convenient  for 
pubUc  travel.     Town  of  Rhine  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  184. 

47.  The  respondent  is  ordered  to  construct  and  maintain  a  bridge 
in  accordance  with  the  plans  and  specifications  submitted.  Town  of 
Wauwatosa  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  709. 

48.  Respondent  is  ordered  to  construct  the  bridge  in  such  a  manner 
that  it  may  be  safe  and  convenient  for  public  travel.  Town  of  Mineral 
Pf.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  693. 

49.  The  bridge  should  be  reset  so  as  to  place  the  entire  structure 
on  the  grade  ascending  toward  the  west.  The  floor  should  be  redesigned 
and  the  clearance  above  the  rail  reduced.  The  grade  on  the  bridge  is  not 
to  exceed  6  per  cent  and  the  approaches  are  not  to  exceed  a  grade  of  6.85 
per  cent.  The  roadway  is  to  be  widened  to  not  less  than  32  feet,  and  is 
to  be  protected  where  necessary  as  specified  by  the  Gommission.  Town 
of  Wauwatosa  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  262. 

50.  The  crossing  should  be  restored.  Respondent  is  ordered  to 
reopen  the  crossing  and  place  it  in  proper  condition  for  public  use. 
Sireeter  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  531,  533. 

51.  In  the  absence  of  any  application  under  sec.  1797-12e  for  establish- 
ing the  manner  of  the  crossing  by  a  railway  company  which  has  con- 
structed its  line  over  a  highway,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  company,  under  sec. 
1836,  to  restore  the  highway  to  its  former  state  or  to  such  condition 
that  it  may  be  conveniently  used  by  the  public  and  to  maintain  the 
highway  in  this  condition.  Town  of  Lucas  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  703. 


Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment      227 

Separation  of  grades — Overhead  bridge. 

52,  Separation  of  grades  by  means  of  overhead  highway  bridge 
ordered:  Town  of  Wauwatosa  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  457; 
In  re  Mills  St.  Ry.  Crossing  at  La  Crosse,  1911,  8  R.  G.  422;  Town  of 
Wauwatosa  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  267;  In  re  Appl.  W.  cfc 
N.  R.  Co.  for  Approval  of  Plans,  1912,  9  R.  G.  322;  Town  Board  of  Beaver 
Dam  V.  M.  S.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  471;  In  re  Fernhaber  Crossing 
East  of  Schleisingerville,  1912,  11  R.  G.  86;  Town  of  Madison  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  395;  Town  of  Maple  Grove  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  686;  Town  of  Mt.  Pleasant  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  749. 

Subway. 

53.  Separation  of  grades  by  means  of  subway  ordered:  Campbell  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  70;  Town  of  Hubbard  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  128;  1911,  6  R.  G.  672;  City  of  West  Allis  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  493;  Town  of  Wauwatosa  v.  C.  d:  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.   G.   737;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1912,  9  R.  G.  193;  Town  of  Greenfield  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
270;  In  re  Invest.  Crossing  of  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  618; 
City  of  Racine  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  740;  Town  of  Wilton 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.,  R.  Co.,  1914, 14  R.  G.  334;  In  re  Crossing  on  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R. 
North  of  Racine,  1914,  14  R.  G.  454;  City  of  Racine  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  783;  In  re  Crossings  on  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  in  Eau  Claire, 
1914.  15  R.  G.  24. 


Tra.ck  depression  and  elevation. 

54.  Railroad  ordered  to  depress  certain  tracks  and  elevate  other 
portions.  In  re  Grade'  Sep.  on  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  in  Milwaukee,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  762. 

Viaduct. 


55.  Viaduct  ordered  constructed  for  separation  of  grades:  City  of 
Superior  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  6  R.  G.  674;  In  re  Mills  Street  Ry. 
Crossing  at  La  Crosse,  1913,  13  R.  G.  145. 

c.    CROSSINGS — RAILROAD    BY   RAILROAD. 
Determination  as  to  manner  of  construction. 

56.  Application  for  an  order  approving  the  condensed  specification 
for  the  construction  of  applicant's  proposed  line  of  railroad,  and  authorizing 
the  construction  thereof  in  accordance  therewith,  and  also  determining 
the  manner  of  certain  proposed  crossings  of  the  tracks  of  other  railway 
companies.  Held:  That  such  specification  complies  with  all  the  require- 
ments of  the  statute  and  demands  of  the  Gommission,  and  that  the  pro- 
posed construction  will  be  adequate  for  securing  and  protecting  the  public 
safety  in  the  operation  of  said  proposed  line  of  railroad.  In  re  Appl. 
W.iSc.N.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  362. 


228     Railroads. — Construction,  maintenance  and  equipment 

c.    CROSSINGS — RAILROAD    BY    RAILROAD. — Continued. 

Mode  and  manner  of  crossing — Determination  of. 

57.  The  manner  of  the  construction  of  all  crossings  of  steam  railroads 
by  steam  railroads,  and  all  crossings  of  electric  or  street  surface  railroads 
by  like  railroads  or  by  steam  railroads,  is  determined  by  the  Commission, 
excepting  when  such  crossings  are  at  points  within  the  limits  of  incorpo- 
rated cities.  Wis.  Stat.  sec.  1797-56.  Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  296. 

Protection    of    crossing — Derailing    system      interlocking    plants; 
signal  system. 

58.  Installation  of  derailing  systems,  interlocking  plants  and  signal 
systems  ordered:  In  re  Appl.  W.  Sz  N.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  362; 
In  re  Appl.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  386. 

d.    CULVERTS. 

Reconstruction  of  culverts. 

59.  Sec.  13886  of  the  statutes  (being  ch.  159,  laws  of  1913)  makes  the 
provision,  construction  and  maintenance  of  sufTicient  ditches,  culverts  or 
other  outlets  under  such  circumstances  as  the  present  mandatory. 
Respondent  is  ordered  to  reconstruct  its  culverts  number  357  and  357^ 
near  Snell's  station  in  the  manner  specified  in  the  order.  Williams  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  366. 

e.   INTERLOCKING   PLANTS. 

Rules  established  by  the  Commission  for  construction  and  main- 
tenance. * 

60.  The  Commission,  under  the  authority  conferred  by  sec.  1797-96 
of  the  Railroad  Commission  Law,  has  decided  to  establish  rules  for  the 
construction,  maintenance  and  operation  of  interlocking  plants  on  rail- 
roads and  street  railways.  The  rules  are  to  become  effective  December  1, 
1913,  and  the  management  of  all  railroads  and  street  railways  are  ordered 
to  conform  to  them.     In  re  Interlocking  Plants,  1913,  12  R.  C.  718. 

f.    LOCOMOTIVE   HEADLIGHTS. 

Merits  of  lights  in  connection  with  statutory  requirements. 

61.  None  of  the  oil  headlights  fulfill  the  requirements  of  the  law. 
The  acetylene  headlights  tested  show  that  the  one  equipped  with  the 
18-inch  reflector  and  with  the  cluster  of  three  burners  each  having  a 
capacity  of  one-half  cubic  foot  per  hour  fulfills  the  requirements  of  the 
law,  provided  the  reflector  is  kept  well  polished  and  in  good  condition. 
The  electric  arc  headlights  tested  fulfill  the  requirements  of  the  law,  but 
certain  prescribed  restrictions  should  be  recognized  in  their  use.  There 
are  probably  other  power  headlights  than  those  presented  for  investiga- 
tion that  have  sufficient  illuminating  capacity  to  comply  with  the  law. 
In  re  Invest.  Locomotive  Headlights,  1912,  11  R.  C.  137. 


Railroads. — Operation 229 

g.    TELL   TALES. 

Rules  relating  to  erection  and  maintenance. 

62.  The  adoption  of  formal  rules  to  govern  the  installation  of  tell 
tales  or  warning  signals,  wherever  bridges,  tunnels  or  other  obstructions 
over  railroad  tracks  may  be  a  menace  to  the  safety  of  trainmen,  is  made 
necessary  by  the  provisions  of  chapter  348,  laws  of  1905.  As  elsewhere 
explained,  final  action  on  these  rules  has  been  withheld  pending  the  ad- 
justment of  certain  doubtful  questions  of  practice,  particularly  with  refer- 
ence to  the  limiting  height  of  the  overhead  obstruction  requiring  the  in- 
stallation of  tell  tales.     In  re  Rules  for  Tell  Tales,  1908,  2.  R.  G.  757.' 

II.     CONTROL  AND  REGULATION. 

a.   IN   GENERAL. 

Determination  as  to  necessity  for  railroad,  see  Gertificate  of  Public 

GONVENIENGE  AND   NECESSITY,   3. 

Extent  of  control — Details  of  operation  left  to  company, 

63.  It  is  only  when  there  is  a  disregard  of  public  accommodation  or 
convenience  or  a  conflict  between  private  interest  and  public  duty,  or  a 
violation  of  any  obligation  to  the  public  whereby  the  latter  suffers  or  is 
likely  to  suffer  a  wrong  because  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  facilities  fur- 
nished or  services  rendered,  or  discriminations  practiced,  or  excessive 
charges  exacted,  that  interference  by  the  state  for  the  purposes  of  regula- 
tion is  justified.  Peoples  Tel.  Co.  v.  E.  R.  Co.  of  M.  et  al,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
822,  841. 

64.  The  Commission  is  always  reluctant  to  interfere  in  details  of 
operation,  unless  absolutely  necessary,  and  they  are  here  left  to  the  rail- 
road management.     Webster  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  500,  508. 

Public  nature  of  railroad. 

65.  That  a  railroad  is  not  private  property  in  the  sense  that  the 
owner  may  do  with  it  what  he  lists,  we  think  is  as  well  settled  as  anything 
can  be  by  the  decisions  of  the  courts.  ^  It  was  settled  in  our  own  court,  in 
Whining  v.  S.  dc  F.  R.  Co.,  25  Wis.  167,  and  in  Attorney-General  v.  Railway 
Companies,  35  Wis.  425.  In  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  126,  the  United 
States  supreme  court  held  that  when  private  property  is  affected  with  a 
public  interest  it  ceases  to  be  Juris  privati  only,  and  that  property  becomes 
clothed  with  a  public  interest  when  used  in  such  manner  as  to  make  it  of 
public  consequence  and  affect  the  community  at  large.  Manitowoc 
Malting  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  69,  77. 

III.     OPERATION. 

a.    FILING    OF   RATES. 

Duty  of  shipper  to  ascertain  lawful  rate. 

66.  Rates  are  legally  effective  only  when  filed  and  published  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  statute.  It  is  incumbent  upon  every  shipper 
to  ascertain  the  lawful  rate  that  may  be  exacted  for  any  proposed  trans- 


230 Railroads. — Operation 

portation  of  goods  before  billing  the  same.  If  he  neglects  to  do  so,  or  is 
willing  to  accept  the  quotation  of  an  agent  of  the  railway  company,  he 
acts  at  his  peril.  (Poor  Grain  Co.  v.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  12  I.  G.  G.  R.  423.) 
Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  700,  701. 

a.    FILING   OF   RATES. — Continued. 

Duty  of  shipper  to  ascertain  that  rate  is  filed  before  making  ship- 
ment. 

67.  Whenever  the  schedule  rate  in  effect  is  prohibitive  of  or  inappli- 
cable to  the  transportation  of  any  commodity,  it  is  incumbent  upon  ship- 
pers to  see  in  advance  of  shipments  of  such  commodity  that  a  proper  rate 
is  made  effective  unless  perchance  the  exigency  of  the  situation  will  not 
admit  of  delay  or  the  railway  company  will  not  accede  to  the  demand  for 
a  different  rate  than  the  one  prescribed  by  its  schedule.  Menasha  Wooden- 
ware  Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  589,  591. 

b.    REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE   AND  FACILITIES. 

See  also  Station  Facilities;  Switch   Gonnections;  Train  Service; 
Warehouses. 

In  general. 

68.  So  long  as  the  facilities  provided  by  a  railroad  company  are  rea- 
sonably adequate  and  efTicient  for  the  purpose  intended,  the  kind  or 
character  of  the  same  which  it  may  adopt  is  purely  a  matter  of  its  own 
volition.  It  is  only  when  the  safety  of  operating  trains  or  the  interest  or 
convenience  of  the  public  in  the  matter  of  transportation  is  involved  in 
the  facilities  provided,  that  the  right  of  selection  of  such  facilities  becomes 
a  matter  of  public  concern  and  may,  in  such  instance,  be  controlled  by 
legislation.     Sauk  City  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.y 

1909,  3  R.  G.  346,  348-349. 

69.  It  is  well  understood  that  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905,  and  acts  amend- 
atory thereto,  requires  railway  companies  to  provide  reasonably  adequate 
service.     Burlington,  Brighton  Sc  Wheatland  Tel.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1910,  4  R.  G.  388,  392;  Eden  Ind.  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  G.  788,  795. 

70.  Mere  inconvenience  does  not  establish  unreasonable  inadequacy 
of  service,  nor  does  the  amount  of  business  transacted  at  a  station  furni^ 
the  decisive  factor.  Homstad  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G. 
1,  4. 

71.  Generally,  railroad  facilities  must  be  furnished  wherever  they  are 
reasonably  required  for  the  convenience  of  the  public.  Dwight  Equity 
Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  501,  502. 

72.  The  duty  of  furnishing  reasonably  adequate  facilities  has  not 
been  left  by  the  statute  in  every  instance  to  the  general  terms  employed 
in  sec.  1797-3,  which  is  merely  declaratory  of  the  common  law.  Thus  we 
find  enumerated  in  the  statute  many  of  the  specific  facilities  that  a  rail- 
way company  must  provide,  to-wit,  passenger  and  freight  depots,  swi-tches 
and  sidetracks  (sec.  1797-9),  suitable  cars  (sec.  1797-10),  industrial  tracks 
(sec.  1797-1  Im),  etc.  This  enumeration  of  facilities  was  doubtless  due  to 
the  conflict  of  authorities  as  to  the  absolute  duty  of  a  railroad  company  to 


. Railroads. — Opera  Hon 231 

furnish  and  maintain  certain  of  such  faciHties  in  the  absence  of  any  legis- 
lation specifically  imposing  such  duty,  (2  Elliott  on  Railroads,  sec.  637, 
1st  Ed.)     City  of  Merrill  v.  Merrill  Ry.  Sc  LI.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  418,  424. 

73.  The  cost  of  service,  however,  is  not  the  only  consideration  in 
determining  the  quantum  of  service  a  railway  company  is  in  duty  bound 
to  perform,  for  it  may  be  that,  in  order  to  discharge  its  duties  in  providing 
reasonably  adequate  service  to  the  public  on  a  branch  line,  it  must  do  so 
at  a  loss;  but  such  an  instance  would  be  an  extreme  case  and  could  only 
arise  when  the  minimum  of  service  reasonably  required  could  not  possibly 
be  rendered  except  at  a  cost  in  excess  of  the  revenue  that  could 
be  derived  from  the  traffic  to  be  thus  accommodated.  Village  of  Curtiss 
u.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  655,  658. 

Abandonment  of  road  or  portion  thereof.     • 

74.  The  Wis.  C.  R.  Go.  is  a  common  carrier  organized  under  the 
laws  of  Wisconsin.  Its  chartered  duty  is  to  operate  a  public  highway  open 
to  the  use  of  all  who  desire  to  use  it  for  a  reasonable  compensation.  It  is 
not  organized  for  the  purpose  of  building  both  public  and  private  high- 
ways, nor  do  we  think  it  has  any  authority  to  build  a  private  highway. 
We  hold  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Wis.  G.  R.  Go.  to  operate  the  spur  in 
question,  or  cause  it  to  be  operated,  until  such  time  as  changes  may  be 
made  as  provided  in  sec.  1832,  Statutes  of  1898,  for  the  benefit  of  all  per- 
sons desiring  to  carry  freight  over  the  same,  and  who  are  willing  to  pay 
a  reasonable  compensation  for  such  service.  Rib  River  Land  Co.  v. 
Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  at.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  739,  763,  765. 

75.  The  Rib  Lake  Branch  extension  has  been  operated  by  the  W.  G. 
R.  Go.  or  its  agents  as  a  common  carrier  and  public  convenience  and  neces- 
sity require  its  operation.  As  such  common  carrier,  the  respondents  can- 
not refuse  to  provide  a  certain  minimum  of  service.  Meyer  v.  Rib  Lake 
Lbr.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  178;  1911,  7  R.  G.  401. 

76.  The  line  in  question  was  operated  as  a  private  logging  railroad, 
and  not  as  a  common  carrier.  The  Gommission  is  therefore  without  juris- 
diction and  the  petition  is  dismissed.  Bolger  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  at.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  223,  234. 

77.  Since  the  respondent  had  taken  the  proper  statutory  proceed- 
ings under  sec.  1832,  and  had  obtained  a  certificate  of  public  convenience 
and  necessity  it  had  full  authority  to  contruct  the  new  line  and  abandon 
the  line  through  Albertville.  The  Gommission  is  without  jurisdiction  to 
entertain  the  petition.  Hart  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <&  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  G.  163. 

Car  service. 

78.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier,  generally,  to  furnish  a  car  adapted  to 
the  transportation  of  a  commodity  designated,  and  having  such  capacity 
that  the  minimum  loading  provisions  will  not  result  in  an  excessive  charge 
for  the  carriage.  This  is  true  in  the  absence  of  any  request  on  the  part 
of  the  shipper  for  any  particular  kind  or  size  of  car.  Loftus-Hubbard  Ele- 
vator Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  91;  Albert  Trostel  &  Sons  v.  W.  C. 
R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  761,  762. 


232 Railroads. — Operation 

79.  It  is  the  duty  of  shippers  to  so  regulate  their  shipments  that 
there  is  a  reasonable  and  fair  relation  between  the  amount  of  freight  that 
is  forwarded  to  them  and  the  amount  of  freight  they  are  equipped  to 
handle.  In  re  Appl.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  101,  104;  Bowers 
et  al.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  634,  641. 

b.    REQUIREMENTS    AS    TO    SERVICE    AND    FACILITIES. — Continued. 

Car  service — Distribution  of  cars. 

80.  It  seems  to  be  well  established  that  in  times  of  a  shortage  of 
cars,  the  cars  allotted  to  any  station  should  be  prorated  among  the  various 
shippers  at  such  station  upon  an  equitable  basis.  All  that  the  law  requires 
is  that  the  carrier  acts  justly  and  fairly  in  making  the  distribution  of  cars. 
There  is  no  hard  and  fast  rule  by  which  the  matter  can  be  determined. 
In  each  case  it  must  be  determined  by  the  information  at  hand  and  ac- 
cording to  the  best  judgment  of  the  person  charged  with  the  duty  of 
making  the  distribution.  Colfax  Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  86,  91. 

Refrigerator  cars. 

81.  Refrigerator  car  service,  being  a  special  service  and  requiring 
special  equipment  and  facilities,  is  of  necessity  a  limited  service.  The 
carrier  may  make  reasonable  regulations  as  to  the  time  when  the  same 
may  be  granted  and  also  restrict  the  service  to  such  lines  and  between 
such  termini  as  the  traffic  conditions  warrant.  Unless  there  is  sufficient 
traffic  of  the  kind  upon  any  line  requiring  the  service  to  pay  the  expense 
thereof  when  rates  are  assessed  which  are  not  prohibitive,  the  carrier 
could  probably  be  justified  in  refusing  to  install  the  service.  Each  case 
must  be  determined  upon  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  it. 
Ellman  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  240,  248. 

Construction  and  maintenance  of  grain  elevator. 

82.  While  an  elevator  at  the  point  in  question  is  a  desirable  facility 
for  a  railway  company  to  have,  and  while  if  the  railway  company  in  ques- 
tion had  furnished  such  a  facility  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  public  it 
would  be  obliged  to  continue  the  service,  it  is  not  under  any  legal  obliga- 
tion to  engage  in  the  elevator  business  as  an  original  proposition.  Supe- 
rior Board  of  Trade  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  658,  659. 

• 

Existing  elevator  or  warehouse  facilities. 

83.  While  it  is  not  the  absolute  legal  duty  of  a  common  carrier  to 
provide  elevator  facilities  at  terminals,  it  is  highly  advantageous  to  the 
public  and  to  the  carrier  that  such  facilities  be  furnished  and  when  they 
are  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  public  and  are  used  by  it  for  a  series  of 
years  so  that  commercial  conditions  and  interests  have  grown  up  under 
such  methods  of  doing  business,  such  elevators  become  an  integral  part  of 
the  equipment  of  the  carrier,  which  the  public  at  large  has  the  right  to 
use.   Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  619,  655. 

Express  facilities. 

84.  So  long  as  the  public  are  served  to  their  reasonable  satisfaction, 
it  is  a  matter  of  no  importance  who  serves  them.     The  railroad  company 


Railroads. — Operation 233 

performs  its  whole  duty  to  the  public  at  large  and  to  each  individual 
when  it  affords  the  public  all  reasonable  express  accommodations.  If 
this  is  done,  the  railroad  company  owes  no  duty  to  the  public  as  to  the 
particular  agencies  it  shall  select  for  that  purpose.  The  public  requires 
the  carriage,  but  the  company  may  choose  its  own  appropriate  means  of 
carriage,  always  provided  they  are  such  as  to  insure  reasonable  promptness 
and  security.  (Express  Cases..  1886,  117  U.  S.  24.)  Sauk  City  Business 
Men's  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  346,  349. 

Operation  at  a  pecuniary  loss. 

85.  We  believe  that  every  railway  compan\'^  owes  certain  duties  to  the 
public  by  virtue  of  its  character  as  a  common  carrier.  It  is  immaterial 
whether  the  performance  of  these  duties  in  themselves  yields  remuner- 
ative returns  or  not.  A  certain  minimum  of  service  must  be  performed 
whether  the  revenues  derived  therefrom  are  sufficient  to  pay  operating 
expenses,  fixed  charges  and  dividends  or  not.  This  minimum  of  service 
must  be  judged  by  the  necessities  of  the  patrons  of  the  line  and  the  con- 
ditions under  which  that  line  is  operated.  Leonard  et  at.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  724,  730. 

86.  It  is  not  necessary  that  each  particular  service  performed  by  a 
public  carrier  should  yield  as  high  a  rate  of  return  as  the  carrier  can 
consistently  and  lawfully  demand  for  its  business  as  a  whole.  A  public 
carrier  owes  certain  duties  to  the  public,  and,  within  reasonable  limits, 
it  must  perform  these  duties  whether  it  pays  or  not.  Dennis  v.  K.  G.  B. 
&  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  115,  116;  Meyer  v.  Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co.  et  al, 
1909,  4  R.  C.  178,  187. 

87.  The  court  will  not  make  a  useless  or  futile  order.  It  will  not  do  a 
vain  thing.  An  order  to  compel  an  insolvent  railroad  company  having 
abandoned  the  use  of  its  road,  to  resume  operation,  should  only  be  issued 
in  the  interest  of  the  public.  If  the  track  is  replaced,  there  is  no  reason- 
able probability  that  the  road  will  be  or  can  be  operated.  If  a  railway 
will  not  pay  its  mere  operating  expenses,  the  public  has  little  interest  in 
the  operation  of  thfe  road  or  in  its  being  kept  in  repair.  (Kansas  v. 
Dodge  City,  M.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  1894,  53  Kan.  329,  336.)  Brown  v.  Janesville 
Street  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  757,  763-764. 

88.  The  mere  fact  that  a  train  might  not  be  remunerative  during  a 
certain  season  of  the  year  would  not  be  a  justification  for  not  furnishing 
it  if  the  convenience  of  the  public,  under  the  circumstances,  reasonably 
required  it.  Seymour  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  G.  B.  So  W.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
8  R.  C.  524,  527. 

89.  Every  part  of  a  railroad  system  cannot  be  expected  to  be  profit- 
able and  a  railway  company  is  generally  in  duty  bound  to  furnish  Reason- 
ably adequate  service  regardless  of  cost,  it,  of  course,  follows  strongly 
that  under  certain  circumstances,  on  a  branch  whose  business  has  in- 
creased, the  adequate  service  to  the  public  may  make  it  necessary  for  a 
railroad  to  operate  a  train  which  is  not  particularly  profitable  or  even 
entails  some  loss.     Webster  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  500,  508. 

90.  There  is  a  certain  minimum  service  to  which  every  community 
served  by  a  common  carrier  is  entitled,  quite  independent  of  the  financial 
results.     Hemmis  et  al.  v.  G.  B.  Sz  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  626,  628-629. 


-  / 


234 Railroads. — Operation '_ 

h.    REQUIREMENTS     AS    TO    SERVICE     AND    FACILITIES. — Continued. 

Operation  of  Sunday  train. 

91.  In  the  absence  of  a  specific  statute  on  the  subject,  the  question 
as  to  Sunday  train  service  must  be  determined  with  reference  to  the 
general  penal  statute  prohibiting  the  performance  of  any  business,  work, 
or  labor,  "except  only  works  of  necessity  and  charity,"  on  Sundays. 
(Wis.  Stat,  of  1898,  sec.  4595.)  The  supreme  court  of  this  state  has 
laid  down  the  rule  that  a  railway  company  is  under  no  obligation  to  carry 
passengers  on  Sundays  because  of  the  inhibition  of  the  statute  (sec.  4595) 
(Walsh  v.  C.  M.  &  SL  P.  R.  ,Co.,  1877,  42  Wis.  23).  Whatever  may  be 
our  views  as  to  the  soundness  or  wisdom  of  the  policy  thus  declared,  it 
is  controlling  in  effect  in  the  case  before  us.  Until  the  legislature  ex- 
pressly excepts  railroad  companies  from  the  operation  of  such  statute, 
or  the  supreme  court  recedes  from  its  former  position,  the  Commission 
is  powerless  to  compel  the  running  of  railway  trains  on  Sundays  for  the 
convenience  of  the  public.  Seymour  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  G.  B.  <Sc  W. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  524,  527-531. 

Special  equipment. 

92.  Wherever  the  territory  served  by  the  railroad  produces  com- 
modities in  sufficient  quantities  which  require  special  equipment  for  their 
proper  shipment,  such  equipment  should  be  provided.  (1,  Wyman, 
Public  Service  Corporations,  sec.  796.)  Ellman  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
9  R.  C.  240,  247. 

Switching  service. 

93.  It  is  competent  for  a  state  to  compel  intersecting  railway  com- 
panies to  make  track  connections  and  to  interchange  traffic  (Wis.  M.  cfc 
P.  R.  Co.  V.  Jacobson,  179,  U.  S.  287),  and  under  the  provisions  of  sec. 
1797-11  (ch.  362,  laws  of  1905)  as  that  section  is  amended,  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  respondent  to  receive  the  car  in  question  and  switch  and 
deliver  the  same  on  its  team  track,  it  being  entitled  to  receive  a  reasonable 
compensation  for  the  service  requested.  Clark  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  590,  593,  595. 

94.  The  service  of  switching  between  different  parts  of  the  same  plant 
is  a  service  which  the  railroad  may  do  in  the  regular  conduct  of  its  business, 
and  is  similar  to  thai  rendered  elsewhere  in  many  cities  and  villages  on  the 
system  as  switching  service  and  at  a  switching  rate.  If  the  canning 
company  is  willing  to  pay  a  fair  rate  for  service,  the  railroad  company 
must  furnish  that  service.  Columbus  Canning  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  C.  137,  138. 

Telegraph  service. 

95.  It  appears  to  be  unquestioned  that  legally  the  telegraph  companies 
and  not  the  railway  companies  are  responsible  for  the  commercial  tele- 
graph business  in  the  state  of  Wisconsin,  In  re  Invest,  of  Telegraph 
Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  263,  268-269. 

Telegraph  and  telephone  service. 

96.  The  railway  company  cannot  be  compelled  to  furnish  either 
telephone  or  telegraph  service  for  the  convenience  of  the  public  in  the 


Railroads. — Operation 235 

transaction  of  business  not  concerning  the  transportation  of  persons  or 
property  or  any  service  in  connection  therewith.  The  transmission  of 
commercial  messages  is  not  usually  within  the  scope  of  the  corporate 
powers  of  a  common  carrier  of  freight  and  passengers,  and  the  railway  in 
the  present  case  has  no  franchise  authorizing  it  to  engage  in  the  business 
of  a  common  carrier  of  messages.  Sauk  City  Business  Men's  Assn.  v. 
C.  M.  <^  Si.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  346,  348. 

Telephone  facilities. 

97.  The  duty  of  furnishing  the  public  with  adequate  telephonic 
service  for  the  purpose  of  transacting  business  with  the  railroad  has  been 
self-imposed,  in  many  instances,  by  reason  of  usage  and  necessity.  It  has, 
therefore,  become  a  necessary  facility  in  such  cases  for  the  proper  dis- 
charge of  the  transportation  business  of  the  railway  company,  within 
the  rule  of  the  common  law  as  well  as  in  contemplation  of  the  express 
legislative  enactments.  While  a  carrier  may  select  the  agencies  by  which 
to  serve  the  public,  it  may  not  select  an  agency  exclusively  which  for  any 
reason  is  incapable  of  fully  discharging  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  the 
public.     People's  Tel.  Co.  v.  E.  R.  Co.  of  M.  et  al.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  822,  843. 

98.  The  extent  to  which  the  statutory  requirement  of  reasonably 
adequate  service  compels  the  furnishing  of  telephone  service  by  railway 
companies,  is  a  question  which  admits  of  no  general  answer  applicable 
to  all  stations.  Burlington,  Brighton  &  Wheatland  Tel.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  388,  392. 

Terminal  facilities. 

99.  It  is  the  duty  of  common  carriers  to  provide  adequate  terminal 
facilities  in  the  way  of  team  tracks  or  warehouses  and  to  permit  the  public 
to  load  and  unload  freight  from  these  tracks  and  warehouses  without  unjust 
preference  or  discrimination.  It  is  also  the  duty  of  common  carriers, 
•where  conditions  require  it,  to  permit  connection  between  their  tracks 
and  private  industrial  tracks  leading  into  industrial  plants.  This  is  a 
requirement  without  which  the  interests  of  the  public  could  not  be  ade- 
quately subserved  by  these  carriers.  Plowright  &  Menzies  v.  C.  &  N.. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  553,  569-570. 

c.    RIGHTS    OF   COMMON  CARRIERS. 

Collection  on  delivery. 

100.  Common  carriers  undoubtedly  have  the  right  to  collect  on 
delivery,  and  also  to  require  that  the  payment  be  made  at  their  offices. 
These  rights,  however,  are  not  always  enforced.  Under  modern  methods 
of  doing  business  credit  plays  so  important  a  part  that  few  can  get  on 
without  it.  It  is  common  in  all  lines  of  business,  including  that  of 
transportation.  It  is  not  only  a  convenience,  but  it  tends  to  promote 
economies  in  as  well  as  expansions  of  the  business.  In  view  of  its  im- 
portance it  is  conceivable  that  carriers  may  so  use  or.  apply  their  credit 
among  their  patrons  as  to  favor  some  much  more  than  others.  Plowright 
&  Menzies  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  553,  565. 


236        .  Railroads. — Operation 

c.    RIGHTS   OF   COMMON   CARRIERS. — Continued. 

Designation  of  purpose  for  which  their  tracks  shall  be  used. 

101.  Generally  speaking,  common  carriers  have  the  right  to  designate 
the  purpose  for  which  their  tracks  shall  be  used.  That  is,  they  may 
determine  what  tracks  shall  be  used  for  team  tracks,  what  tracks  shall  be 
used  for  switching  tracks,  and  so  on.  The  public  may  demand  facilities 
that  are  reasonably  adequate,  and  it  is  also  entitled  to  such  facilities; 
but  this  does  not  mean  that  each  particular  shipper  can  pick  out  that 
particular  track  or  part  of  the  track  for  his  own  use  which  suits  him  the 
best.  The  railroads  are  operated  for  the  public  as  a  whole,  for  all  the 
shippers  rather  than  for  a  part  of  the  shippers.  But  their  management  is 
entrusted  to  their  officers  and  should  not  be  interfered  with  except  whei^ 
some  provision  in  the  law  is  violated  or  when  it  is  necessary  to  do  so  in 
the  interests  of  public  policy.  Plowright  <Sc  Menzies  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  553,  571. 

d.    SHIPPING   DIRECTIONS. 

Responsibility  of  carrier. 

102.  It  would  be  imposing  an  improper  burden  upon  the  railway 
company,  and  one  which,  perhaps,  could  not  be  lawfully  imposed  under 
the  given  circumstances,  to  require  it  to  assume  responsibility  for  securing 
shipping  directions  for  a  car  which  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  offered  for 
transportation  to  another  company,  and  regarding  which  it  can  have 
no  knowledge  except  what  may  be  contained  in  a  receipt  signed  through 
error  by  its  agent  at  the  instance  of  a  shipper's  agent  who  is  acting  in 
error.     Milwaukee  Western  Malt  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  a/.,  1910, 

5  R.  C.  437,  439-440. 

e.    SPEED   OF   TRAINS. 

Regulation  of  speed  within  a  municipality. 

103.  It  appears  to  us  that  the  matter  of  violation  of  ch.  595  need  not 
be  discussed  for  the  reason  that  the  local  authorities  have  the  full  remedy 
within  their  own  hands  to  regulate  the  speed  of  trains  within  the  village. 
Every  railway  company  should  be  expected  to  comply  strictly  with  the 
law,  but  if  it  does  not  do  so,  there  is  sufficient  police  authority  vested  in 
the  local  officials  to  put  a  prompt  stop  to  such  violations.     Tate  v.  C.  B. 

6  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  348,  349-350. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — Railroad. 

IV.     RIGHT  OF  WAY  AND  OTHER  INTERESTS  IN  LAND. 

Condemnation  of  right  of  way,  exercise  of  delegated  power  of  eminent 

domain,  see  Eminent  Domain,  3. 
Site  for  warehouse  on  railroad's  right  of  way  within  yard  limits  of  station 

or  terminal,  see  Warehouses,  2. 


Rate  Wars  237 


Rights  in  and  use  of  highways  and  public  places. 

103.  While  the  streets  cannot  be  permanently  used  for  private  pur- 
poses or  for  the  construction  of  railroads  for  private  purposes,  they  may 
be  used  for  the  construction  of  a  spur  track  leading  to  an  industry;  such 
tracks  are  of  a  public  character  and  designed  to  serve  all  persons  without 
discrimination.  Under  the  statute  railroads  have  the  right  to  construct 
their  tracks  across  or  upon  the  highways  of  any  city  or  village,  subject 
only  to  the  right  of  cities  to  exercise  reasonable  regulations  respecting  the 
location  and  construction  of  such  tracks,  and  the  duty  of  the  railroad  com- 
panies to  so  construct  them  as  not  to  materially  impair  the  usefulness  of 
the  highway;  no  license  or  authority  is  required  from  the  Commission  or 
the  village  board  to  construct  the  proposed  track.  Farmers'  Store  Co.  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  Ry  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  42,  51-53. 

104.  Spur  tracks  may  not  be  constructed  across  or  upon  any  street, 
lane  or  alley  within  the  corporate  limits  of  any  city  without  the  consent 
of  the  proper  authorities  of  such  city,  who  may  prescribe  terms  and  con- 
ditions for  the  construction  of  such  tracks.  Wis.  Statutes,  sec.  1802  and 
sec.  1831a.  Lang  et  at.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  aL,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  296. 

105.  It  was  not  until  ch.  262  of  the  laws  of  1907  was  enacted  amend- 
ing sec.  1831a,  that  cities  were  granted  the  power  to  pass  upon  the  loca- 
tion of  such  tracks  in  the  public  thoroughfares.  Prior  to  such  amendment 
cities  were  in  the  same  situation  respecting  the  use  of  streets  by  railway 
companies  for  tracks  as  are  towns  and  villages  at  the  present  time.  Farm- 
ers' Store  Co.  v.  C.  Si.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  42,  50;  Burns  v. 
La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.  et  at.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  195,  197. 


VALUATION. 

See  Valuation. 

RATE  OF  RETURN. 

See  Return. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utility,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  36. 

RATE  SCHEDULES. 

See  Schedules  for  Utilities;  Schedules  or  Tariffs. 

RATE  WARS. 

Power  of  Commission  to  prevent  rate  wars  between  competing  railroads, 
see  Railroad  Commission,  135. 
between  competing  utilities,  see  Railroad  Commission,  136. 


238 


Rates-Electric. — Active  load 


RATES— ELECTRIC. 

Deposits  to  insure  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations,  21-26. 
Discounts  for  prompt  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

14-19. 
Discrimination  in  electric  rates,  see  Discrimination,  7-27,  45-46. 
Penalties  for  delinquent  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

14-18,  20. 


I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 

XX. 

XXI. 

XXII. 

XXIII. 

XXIV. 

XXV. 

XXVI. 

XXVII. 

XXVIII. 

XXIX. 

XXX. 


\ 


ACTIVE    LOAD. 

CHARGE    FOR    INSTALLING    METERS. 

COMBINED    LIGHT    AND    POWER    SERVICE. 

CONTRACTS    FOR    SERVICE. 

COOKING    AND    HEATING    PLANTS. 

DEMAND. 

DISPLAY    OR    SIGN    LIGHTING. 

ELECTRIC    FLAT    IRONS. 

EMERGENCY    OR    "STANDBY"    SERVICE. 

FLAT    RATES. 

INCIDENTAL    APPLIANCES. 

LAMP    RENEWALS. 

LIMITED    OR    "OFF-PEAK"  SERVICE. 

MAKING    RATES— ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. 

MAXIMUM    RATES. 

METER    RATES. 

METER  RENTAL. 

MINIMUM    CHARGES. 

OUTSIDE    CONSUMERS. 

POWER    RATES. 

PUMPING    RATES. 

RATE    WARS. 

REASONABLENESS  OF  ADVANCE  IN  RATES  IN  PARTIC- 
ULAR  CASES. 

REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS  CONSIDERED 
IN   DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR  CASES. 

RECONNECTION    CHARGES. 

SERVICE    CHARGES. 

SHORT  TIME  SERVICE. 

SPECIAL    CONTRACT    RATES. 

STREET    LIGHTING    RATES. 


I.     ACTIVE  LOAD. 

Determination  of  method  of  determining  active  load  prescribed. 

1.  Lighting.—//?  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Lt.  &:  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C 
311;  768;  In  re  Appl  Stoughton  Man.  EL  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  3  R.  C.  484; 
In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  cfc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778;  In  re  Appl.  Cumber- 
land Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  C.  214;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madi- 
son G.  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  cfc  W.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  1;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  302;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R  G. 
360;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555;  In  re 
Appl.  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  6  R.  C.  506;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W. 


Rates-Eleciric. — Combined  light  and  power  service      239 

G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187;  In  re  Appl.  Chippeum  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P. 
Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  305;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co. 
1912,  9  R.  C.  406.  In  re  Invest  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.&P.  Co.,  1912, 

10  R.  C.  692;  Superior  ComnCl.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co., 

1912,  10  R.  C.  704;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Plant,  1912, 

11  R.  C.  197;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  C.  216;  In  re 
Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Appl.  Ft. 
Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green 
Bay  Gas  cfc  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  324;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  337;  In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  C. 
584;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  19;  In  re 
Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  52;  In  re  Madison  G.  cfc  EL 
Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  259;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  344;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C. 
444;  In  re  Appl.  Mt.  Horeb  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  653;  In  re 
Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  <k  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  712;  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe 
El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  227;  In  re  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914.  14  R.  G.  350; 
Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  381;  Kittleson  et  al.  v. 
Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public 
Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant, 
1914,  15  R.  G.  189;  In  re  Appl.  United  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
505;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534. 

,  Power.— /n  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
311,  768;  In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  3  R.  G.  484; 
In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778;  State  Journal  Prtg. 
Co.  V.  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co., =1910,  4  R.  G.  501;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G. 
S:  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 

12  R.  G.  337;  Rosencrans  et  al.  v.  Prairie  City  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  413; 
In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G.  584;  In  re  Appl.  Nesh- 
koro Lt.  (Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  & 
El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co., 

1913,  13  R.  G.  344;  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  227;  In  re 
Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  381;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15 
R.  G.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  189; 
In  re  Appl.  United  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  505. 

II.     GHARGE  FOR  INSTALLING  METERS. 

Reasonableness  of. 

2.  To  protect  the  utility  from  loss  through  temporary  consumers,  a 
charge  was  authorized  to  be  made  when  a  temporary  consumer  discon- 
tinued service  and  less  than  a  certain  amount  of  current  had  been  con- 
sumed.    In  re  City  of  Manitowoc,  1914,  14  R.  G.  697. 

III.     GOMBINED  LIGHT  AND  POWER  SERVIGE. 

Establishment  of  rates. 

3.  Rates  for  combined  lighting  and  power  service  established.  In  re 
Invest.  Milw.  Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  G.  541;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  EL 
Lt.Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197. 


240 Rates-Electric. — Contracts  for  service 

IV.     CONTRACTS  FOR  SERVICE. 
When  lawful. 

■ 

4.  Applying  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  courts  and  the  text 
writers,  we  have  to  determine  first,  whether  the  contracts  under  considera- 
tion were  void  from  the  beginning  because  the  rates  named  were  unreason- 
ably low.  The  Commission  does  not  feel  warranted  in  so  finding.  In  re 
AppL  Rhinelander  Power  Co.  to  Amend  its  Rates,  1915,  15  R.  C.  783,  801. 

V.     COOKING  AND  HEATING  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

5.  Rates  for  cooking  and  heating  established.  Superior  Comm'l. 
Ctub  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704;  In  re  AppL 
Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  729;  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe 
El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  227;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  381. 

VI.     DEMAND. 
Determination  of. 

6.  Method  of  determining  electric  power  demand  established.  In  re 
Appl.  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  6  R.  C.  506;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val. 
Ry.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  305;  In  re  Invest.  Milw.  Electric  Rates,  1912, 
9  R.  C.  541;  In  re  Appl.  Rhinelander  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  783. 

VII.     DISPLAY  OR  SIGN  LIGHTING. 

Establishment  of  rates. 

7.  Rates  for  sign  or  display  lighting  estabhshed.  In  re.  Invest.  Milw. 
Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  Superior  Comm'l.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior 
W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  G.  & 
El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  324;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  C.  19;  444;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
381. 

VIII.     ELECTRIC  FLATIRONS. 
Rates  for. 

8.  In  the  present  case  the  question  was  raised  as  to  the  rates  which  a 
laundry  should  pay  for  current  used  by  electric  flatirons.  The  utiUty 
asks  permission  to  establish  a  flat  rate  for  this  class  of  service.  As  a  gen- 
eral proposition  it  is  not  advisable  to  establish  flat  rates  except  where 
the  amount  of  energy  used  is  so  small  as  not  to  warrant  the  additional 
investment,  or  where  a  fixed  installation  is  burned  a  certain  number  of 
hours.  Of  course,  in  the  latter  case  the  amount  of  energy  used  can  be 
easily  and  definitely  computed,  hence  a  meter  is  not  necessary.  Coming 
back  to  this  particular  laundry,  it  seems  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  its 
use  of  current  for  heating  irons  is  mostly  off-peak  it  should  be  entitled  to 
the  power  rate  for  this  service.  In  re  AppL  Columbus  W.  &.  Li.  Comm., 
1913,  11  R.  C.  449,  472. 


Rates-Electric. — Flat  rates  241 


IX.     EMERGENCY  OR  "STANDBY"  SERVICE. 

Establishment  of  rates. 

9.  Rates  for  emergency  or  "standby"  service  established.  Lighting 
Service. — In  re  AppL  La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138;  In  re 
Invest.  EvansvUle  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197.  Power  Serv- 
ice.— In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  <fe  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138;  In  re  Invest. 
Miliv.  Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W. 
A  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534. 


X.     FLAT  RATES. 

Generally  unsatisfactory. 

10.  Flat  rates  for  electric  service  are  unscientific  as  well  as  unsatis- 
factory in  every  other  respect.  Under  them  it  is  impossible  to  adjust  the 
rates  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of  the  serxice,  which  seems  to  be  about  the 
only  sound  system  of  fate  making,  and  they  are  likely  to  lead  to  dissatisfac- 
tions and  to  trouble  generally.  In  re  Appl.  Fox  River  Millg.  cfc  P.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  135,  138;  In  re  Appl.  Portage  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  258, 
260;  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville  EL  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  392,  417;  In  re 
AppL  Medford  Lt.  &  Htg.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  421,  424;  In  re  AppL  Chetek 
Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  662,  666-667;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Li.  &  W. 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  34;  In  re  Appl.  Durand  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
334,  348;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  406, 
435;  In  re  Invest.  EvansvUle  Mun.  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197, 
206;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449,  473;  In  re 
AppL  Village  of  Withee,  1914,  13  R.  C.  704,  709. 

11.  The  present  flat  rate  of  50  cts.  per  lamp  per  month  is  equivalent 
to  a  charge  of  534  hours'  use  daily  at  the  above  rate.  As  many  of  the 
flat  rate  lamps  are  used  in  such  places  as  halls,  for  all  night  service,  the 
charge  of  50  cts.  per  lamp  per  month  is  not  deemed  excessive  in  this  case. 
Hood  et  at.  v.  Monroe  EL  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  227,  236. 

12.  In  fixing  a  schedule  of  flat  rate  charges,  the  rate  per  watt  of  load 
connected  should  bear  some  relation  to  the  amount  of  service  rendered, 
but  this  relation  is  so  difficult  to  ascertain  and  classify  that  the  application 
of  flat  rat.es  ought  to  be  limited  to  those  cases  in  which  the  installation  of  a 
meter  is  too  expensive.  There  should  be  also  a  minimum  charge  for 
unmetered  service  in  order  to  insure  that  a  reasonable  part  of  the  cost  of 
service  be  paid  by  the  customer.  In  re  AppL  Browntown  Mun.  Lt. 
Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  560,  565. 

13.  In  case  consumers  do  not  abide  by  the  rule  of  the  utility  there  are 
two  possible  courses  to  be  taken.  Service  may  be  discontinued  or  meters 
may  be  installed.  Which  of  these  courses  should  be  pursued  must  be 
dependent  upon  a  variety  of  conditions.  We  are  inclined  to  believe  that 
the  better  course  to  pursue  in  this  case  would  be  to  use  the  meter  basis  of 
selUng  current.  In  re  AppL  Gilmanton  Mill  &  El.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
152.  154. 


242 Rates-Electric. — Flat  rates 

For  limited  service.  , 

14.  The  company  has  filed  with  the  Commission  certain  schedules  to 
apply  to  patrolled  service  for  display  lighting  and  to  residence  and  business 
lighting  where  the  maximum  demand  is  limited  by  a  controlling  device. 
In  these  schedules  the  rates  consist  of  fixed  charges  based  upon  the  amount 
of  demand  contracted  for  by  the  customers.  These  rates  are  not  in- 
consistent with  the  other  schedules  which  the  Commission  will  order. 
Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  381,  389. 

XI.  INCIDENTAL  APPLIANCES. 

Relation  to  active  load. 

15.  Incidental  appliances  to  be  considered  in  determining  the  active 
lighting  load  of  a  consumer.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  G.  cfc 
El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910, 
5.  R.  C.  1;  Cunningham  et  al.  u.  Cliippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  302;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910, 

5  R.  C.  555;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187; 
City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  406;  In  re  Invest. 
Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  692;  Superior  Comm'l  Club 
et  al.  V.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704;  In  re  Appl  Ft.  Atkin- 
son W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Gas 

6  El  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  324;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  cfc  El  Co., 

1913,  13  R.  C.  100;  In  re  Madison  G.  cfc  El  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  259. 

16.  Incidental  appliances  not  to  be  considered  in  determining  the 
active  lighting  load  of  a  consumer.  In  re  Appl  Columbus  W.  &  Lt. 
Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  584;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  52;  In  re 
Appl.  Darlington  El  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  344;  In  re  Appl  Ml 
Horeb  Hi  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  653;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El  Lt. 
Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  712;  Hood  et  al  v.  Monroe  El  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
227;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  381;  Kittleson 
et  al  V.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  485;  Jones  et  al.  v. 
Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121;  In  re  Appl  Sun  Prairie 
Mun.  El  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  189;  In  re  Appl  United  III  Lt.  d:  P.  Co., 

1914,  15  R.  C.  505;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sc  El  Plant,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  534. 

17.  Rates  for  incidental  appliances  established.  In  re  Appl  Chip- 
pewa Val  Ry.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  311,  768. 

XII.  LAMP  RENEWALS. 
Free  renewals. 

18.  Utility  required  to  furnish  free  lamp  renewals.  In  re  Appl 
Men.  Sc  Mar.  Lt.  Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v. 
Madison  G.  Sc  El  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa 
Falls  W.  Wks.  Sc  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  302;  In  re  Invest.  Milw.  Electric 
Rates,  19.12,  9  R.  C.  541;  In  re  Appl  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G.  584;. 
In  re  Madison  G.  cfc  El  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  259. 


Rates-Electric. — Making  rates — elements  considered        243 


XIII.  LIMITED  OR  "OFF-PEAK"  SERVICE. 

Establishment  of  rates. 

19.  Rates  established  for  limited  or  "off-peak"  service.  In  re  Invest. 
Milw.  Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe  El  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  227. 

XIV.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  GONSIDERED. 

Comparative  data. 

20.  Comparisons  alone  sometimes  fall  short  of  furnishing  all  the 
information  that  is  necessary  in  order  to  determine  whether  a  particular 
rate  or  schedule  is  just  or  unjust.  Nevertheless,  such  comparisons  are 
very  important  and  constitute  one  of  the  elements  that  should  receive 
due  consideration  in  all  rate  adjustments.  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry. 
&  Ltg.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  148,  166-167. 

Cost  of  service. 

21.  The  best  rates  are  those  that  are  based  upon  the  cost.  Each 
customer  should,  under  ordinary  conditions,  contribute  his  just  proportion 
of  all  the  expenses  as  well  as  of  the  interest  upon  the  investment.  In  re 
Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  3,  30;  In  re  Appl.  Fox  River 
Millg.  &  P.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  135,  139;  In  re  Appl.  Alma  El.  Lt.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  G.  144,  146;  In  re  Appl.  Medford  Lt.  &  Htg.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
421,  424;  In  re  Men.  6c  Mar.  Lt.  <Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  831;  In  re 
Appl.  North  Milw.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  89,  102;  City  of  Manitowoc 
V.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  370;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson. 
Muh.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  560;  City  of  Watertown  v. 
Watertown  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  604,  606. 

Continuous  service. 

22.  Continuous  service .  which  will  make  lights  available  even  at 
times  when  there  is  practically  no  load  on  the  plant  undoubtedly  tends  to 
make  service  more  expensive  than  it  would  be  if  supplied  only  at  times  of 
considerable  demand,  and  we  think,  that  with  the  exception  of  the 
minimum  charge,  the  lighting  schedule  may  be  accepted.  In  re  Appl. 
Burkhardt  Millg.  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  409,  411. 


— : —     Cost  of  additional  business. 

23.  The  fixing  of  rates  for  certain  services  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of 
additional  business  has  well  defined  limitations.  It  would  seem  that  it 
can  be  justified  only  in  cases  where  the  additional  business  can  be  had  on  no 
better  terms  and  where  these  terms  are  such  as  to  yield  something  in  the 
way  of  profit  and  are  not  unjustly  discriminatory.  State  Journal  Prtg. 
Co.  et  al.  V.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  671. 

24.  To  adhere  closely  to  the  table  of  costs  is  not  always  advisable. 
The  reason  for  distributing  the  fixed  cost  over  the  three  steps,  in  the 
present  case  as  well  as  in  many  other  instances,  contrary  to  the  cost 
curve,  and  thus  charging  the  short  hour  user  less  than  his  pro  rata  share, 
is  that  there  are  a  great  many  short  hour  users  who  cannot  be  made  to 


244      Raies-Elecfric. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

contribute  the  full  amount  of  this  share.  These  consumers  are  profitable, 
however,  when  they  help  bear  a  part  at  least  of  the  overhead  charges, 
and,  even  though  they  do  not  carry  their  full  share,  thus  lighten  the  load 
to  the  other  consumers.  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  Sz  P.  Co.,  1913,  13 
R.  C.  52,  63. 

25.  The  Commission  has  pointed  out  in  many  cases  the  advantages 
of  a  power  load.  All  that  need  be  said  here  is  that  off-peak  long-hour 
power  business  which,  for  competitive  and  other  reasons,  cannot  be  had 
on  better  terms,  might  be  accepted  at  less  than  the  regular  rates,  provided, 
of  course,  that  the  yield  therefrom  leaves  something  for  fixed  charges  and 
provided  further,  that  it  can  be  so  taken  without  unjust  discrimination. 
For  various  reasons  it  is  customary  everywhere  to  grant  much  lower 
rates  for  power  than  for  lighting.  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  C.  52,  64. 

Cost  of  service — Deficits  arising  from  failure  of  a  branch  of  the 
service  to  pay  its  costs. 

26.  When  one  service  does  not  pay  its  cost,  some  of  the  other  services 
must  contribute  to  make  up  the  loss  in  the  form  of  higher  rates  if  the  utility 
as  a  whole  is  to  receive  a  fair  return  on  its  investment.  The  question 
as  to  how  much  of  these  deficits  can  be  equitably  charged  to  the  other 
services,  such  as  street  lighting  and  commercial  lighting,  must  be  the 
issue  in  this  case.  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  100.  125-126.  > 

Demand  factor. 

27.  The  plant  must  hold  itself  in  readiness  to  furnish  current  whenever 
it  is  demanded.  As  electric  current  can  not  be  profitably  stored,  the  plant 
must  not  only  be  in  constant  operation,  but  its  capacity  must  be  equal  to 
the  greatest  demand  that  is  made  upon  it.  These  facts,  in  turn,  tend  to 
materially  increase  the  cost  of  operation,  first  because  the  investment 
required  is  greater  than  would  otherwise  be  the  case,  and  again,  because 
the  plant  cannot  be  closed  down  during  those  periods  when  little  demand 
is  made  for  current.  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  311,  319;  In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  825; 
In  re  Appl.  Cumberland  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  C.  214,  219;  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  662- 
663;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  cfc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  28,  29;  City  of 
Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  383;  In  re  Appl. 
Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  563;  City  of  Beloit 
V.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  376;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  EL 
Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  712,  717. 


Injuries,  damages  and  law  expenses. 

28.  Unusual  sums  expended  for  injuries  and  damages  and  law 
expenses  for  particular  years  must,  for  rate-making  purposes,  be  spread 
over  a  longer  period,  for  rates  based  upon  the  costs  of  particular  years  in 
which  extraordinary  expenses  have  occurred  would  yield  revenues  con- 
siderably above  what  is  required  in  normal  years.  In  re  Invest.  Electric 
Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  C.  584,  593. 


Rates-Electric. — Making  rates — elements  considered       245 

Lamp  renewals. 

29.  The  installation  of  the  tungsten  street  lighting  system  also 
necessitates  an  estimate  of  lamp  renewals.  From  a  great  deal  of  data 
collected  in  this  office  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  the  cost  over  a  period  of 
years  for  maintenance  and  renewals  will  be  near  to  80  cts.  per  1000 
burning  hours.      In  re  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  455. 

Long  and  short  hour  use. 


30.  Under  the  more  usual  methods  of  classifying  the  expenses  it  often 
happens  that  the  rates  computed  for  the  short  hour  consumer  become 
prohibitory,  and  in  order  to  attract  customers  must  be  arbitrarily  reduced. 
The  losses  sustained  by  thisreduction  may  have  to  be  made  up  by  raising 
other  rates.  It  may  not  often  be  possible  to  trace  the  causes  which 
make  such  arbitrary  adjustment  of  the  rates  necessary  to  any  improper 
classification  of  the  expenses,  but  the  fact  that  such  adjustments  may  have 
to  be  made  is  apt  to  lead  to  doubts  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  method 
employed.     In  re  AppL  La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  EL  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  3,  26. 

31.  Generally  speaking,  the  rates  should,  as  far  as  practicable,  be 
based  upon  cost.  Short  hour  users  are  more  costly  to  the  plant  than  long 
hour  users,  and  consequently  should  pay  higher  rates.  Unless  the  rates 
charged  in  each  case  bear  a  rather  close  relation  to  the  cost,  there  is  apt 
to  be  discrimination  as  between  the  customers  in  this,  that  some  among 
them  are  forced  to  contribute  more  than  their  share  of  the  total  income, 
while  others  are  charged  less  than  they  should  pay.  Dodgeville  v.  Dodge- 
ville  El.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  392,  412;  In  re  Appl.  North  Milw.  Lt.  Sc 
P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  89,  99-100;  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc  El.  P, 
Co.  1910,  5  R.  G.  139,  163;  Harrington  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1910, 
6  R.  G.  64,  68;  Superior  Comm^l.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  798;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  260,  302. 

32.  Examination  reveals  that  the  cost  per  unit  of  current  is  much 
greater  for  those  who  use  their  lights  only  a  short  time  each  day,  than  for 
those  who  use  their  lights  for  longer  periods  daily.  The  reason  for  this  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  so-called  constant  expenses  depend  largely 
upon  the  installation  or  capacity,  rather  than  upon  the  amount  of  current 
used.  In  re  Appl.  Medford  Lt.  Sc  Htg.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  421,  423;  In  re 
Appl.  Cumberland  Mun.  El.  Ltg.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  G.  214,  226-227;  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,*  687- 
688;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  34;  In  re  Appl. 
Darlington  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  397,  414-415;  In  re  AppL 
Jefferson  Mun.  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  569;  City  of  Beloit  v. 
Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  EL  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  369;  Electric  Theater  et  aL  v. 
Lodi  EL  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  7  R.  G.  745,  752. 

33.  Electric  rates  that  are  fixed  without  regard  to  the  installation  or 
the  maximum  demand  of  the  consumers  and  the  length  of  time  the  current 
is  used  by  them,  are  likely  to  be  discriminatory  or  inequitable.  In  re  Men. 
Sc  Mar.  LL  Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  830;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Mani- 
towoc EL  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  360,  383;  In  re  AppL  Red  Cedar  VaL  EL  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  758,  759. 


246       Rates-Electric. — Making  rates — elements  considered^ 

Cost  of  service — Output,  capacity  and  consumer  costs. 

34.  In  general  the  cost  of  supplying  electricity  or  electric  current  to 
the  consumers  is  made  up  of  two  classes  of  expenses,  one  of  which  includes 
the  so-called  fixed,  and  the  other  the  so-called  variable  expenses.  The 
fixed  expenses  depend  on  the  capacity  or  the  maximum  demand.  The 
variable  expenses  depend  upon  the  amount  of  energy  or  current  produced 
or  sold.  The  relation  which  these  expenses  bear  to  each  other  depends 
very  largely  upon  the  conditions  under  which  each  particular  plant  is 
operating.  In  re  AppL  La  Crosse  Gas  &  EL  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  3,  22;  In  re 
Appl.  Fox  River  Millg.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  135,  138;  In  re  Appl.  Alma 
El.  LI.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  144,  147;  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry.  &  Ltg.  Co., 

1907,  2  R.  C.  148,  156;    In  re  Appl.    Chippewa  Val.  Ry.   Lt.  &  P.  Co., 

1908,  2  R.  G.  311,  319;  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville  El  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
392,  410;  In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  6c  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  825;  In  re 
Appl.  Cumberland  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  C.  214,  226;  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  687;  City  of 
Ripon  V.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  30;  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt 
Millg.  Sc  El.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139,  163;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Mani- 
towoc El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360,  385;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  Et. 
Lt.  Sc  \V.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  570:  In  re  Appl.  Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co., 
1910,  6  R.  C.  53,  56;  In  re  Appl.  Durand  Lt.  S:  P.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  334, 
339-340;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  756; 
City  ofBeloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  367;  In  re  Invest. 
Evansville  Mun.  El  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197,  204-205;  In  re 
Appl.  Mt.  Iloreb  Ht.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  653,  660-661;  Hood  et  al. 
V.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  227,  232. 

As  affected  by  stability  of  service. 

35.  Obviously,  stabiHty  of  consumption  is  greatly  to  be  desired  by 
the  management  of  an  electric  utility  and  is  equally  to  the  interest  of  con- 
sumers. Any  large  percentage  of  discontinued  service  during  the  year,  re- 
sulting in  a  comparatively  large  number  of  consumers  being  served  for 
less  than  twelve  months  per.  year,  is  certain  to  have  an  adverse  effect  upon 
the  apportionment  of  expenses  as  between  classes  and  the  appropriate 
rates.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  37. 

Rate  of  return. 

36.  Request  was  made  for  an  interest  allowance  only  large  enough  to 
pay  interest  on  the  bonded  indebtedness  of  the  plant.  Five  per  cent  of 
the  fair  value  has  been  used  in  our  computations  as  a  reasonable  rate  of 
return.  In  re  Appl.  Mun.  El.  Utility  of  Sun  Prairie,  1914,  15  R.  G.  189, 
193. 

Taxes. 

37.  The  probability  that  taxing  officers  will  use  the  value  placed  by 
the  Commission  upon  the  property  of  the  utility  as  the  basis  for  assessing 
higher  taxes  against  the  utility  should  be  taken  into  consideration  in 
fixing  rates  for  the  services  of  the  utility.  Taxes  are  a  legitimate  expense 
of  production  and  must  be  met  from  the  revenues  of  the  utility.  City  of 
Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100,  115-116. 


Raies-Elcclric. — Making  rates — elements  considered       247 

38.  Though  the  utility  in  the  instant  case  for  some  reason  had  not 
paid  any  taxes  up  to  date  it  is  not  likely  that  this  situation  will  continue 
and  allowance  has  therefore  been  made  for  taxes  in  determining  normal 
expenses.    In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  ik  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  712,  716. 

39.  It  is  clearly  evident  that  some  consideration  should  be  given  to 
the  increase  in  taxes  in  fixing  rates  for  service.  Otherwise,  the  revenue 
from  operation  would  be  insufficient  to  meet  the  expense  of  running  the 
plant.  Cihj'of  Watertown  v.  Wateriown  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  604, 
614. 

40.  In  order  to  determine  the  true  cost  of  service  for  which  consum- 
ers of  a  municipal  utility  should  pay  there  should  be  included ^n  allowance 
for  estimated  taxes.  A  private  plant  would  have  to  pay  taxes,  and  if  a  mu- 
nicipal plant  is  exempted,  taxes  on  other  property  holders  throughout  the 
city  must  be  raised  as  a  result.  The  resulting  increase  is  as  truly  a  cost  of 
furnishing  a  utility  service  as  is  any  other  cost  of  operation.  In  re  Appl. 
Ft.  Atkinson  W.  cfc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  285;  In  re  Appl.  Stough- 
ton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  System,  1909,  3  R.  G.  484,  490;  In  re  Appl.  Cumberland 
Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  C.  214,  216-217;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of 
Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  G.  216,  218;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm., 

1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  456-457;  In  re  Appl.  Mun.  El.  Utility  of  Sun  Prairie, 

1914,  15  R.  G.  189,  193;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  534,  540. 

Wages  and  salaries. 

41.  Analysis  of  comparative  data  shows  that  the  normal  amount  ex- 
pended for  wages  and  salaries  is  about  40  to  45  per  cent  of  the  total  oper- 
ating expenses,  modified  in  individual  instances  by  local  conditions.  City 
of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  406,  431-432. 

42.  There  seems  to  be  very  little  doubt  that  a  part  of  executive 
officers'  salaries  should  be  considered  in  this  instance  as  a  part  of  the 
profits  of  the  business.  In  other  words,  liberal  expenditure  for  salaries 
which  may  be  the  means  of  obtaining  efficient  operation  must  be  consid- 
ered as  at  least  part  of  the  premium  allowable  for  the  efUciency  obtained. 
Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe  EL  Co.,  1^14,  14  R.  G.  227,  231. 

Development  and  retention  of  business. 

43.  In  making  an  adjustment  in  the  rate  schedule  of  a  utility,  increas- 
ing the  rate  to  large  power  consumers  is  a  serious  matter,  because  there  is 
always  the  likelihood  of  such  customers  finding  it  advantageous  to  use 
some  other  source  of  power.  In  the  instant  case  we  have  given  this  matter 
careful  consideration,  and  we  believe  that  the  rate  prescribed  is  low 
enough  to  retain  the  business  that  the  utility  now  has,  and  at  the  same 
time  high  enough  to  pay  the  additional  costs  involved  in  furnishing  the 
service.  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  c^  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534, 
545. 

44.  While  circumstances  seem  to  furnish  a  strong  argument  for  an 
increase  in  the  apphcant's  rates,  it  must  be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  marketableness  of  the  applicant's  supply  of  power  at  rates  much 
higher  than  those  now  charged  has  not  been  demonstrated  before  the 
Gommission,  and,  since  ability  to  dispose  of  power  in  a  somewhat  limited 


248       Rates-Electric. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

market  constitutes  as  influential  a  force  upon  the  value  of  the  supply  as 
any  other  factor,  the  establishment  of  rates  regardless  of  such  circum- 
stances is  a  delicate  and  difficult  task  which  should,  however,  be  limited 
by  a  reasonable  maximum  based  upon  the  facts  brought  out  in  this  case. 
In  re  Appl.  Rhinelander  Power  Co.  to  Amend  its  Rates,  1915,  15  R.  C.  783, 
813. 

Economies  in  operation. 

45.  It  is  expected,  and  is  quite  generally  found  to  be  the  fact,  that 
in  combined  plants  the  rates  of  general  expenses  or  management  costs 
will  be  less  than  in  the  case  of  single  utilities  or  plants  operating  a  water, 
gas,  electric,  or  electric  railway  property  alone.  A  combination  of  utili- 
ties, such  as  this  case  presents,  may  offer  many  opportunities  for  economies 
not  possible  in  a  single  utility.  Where  such  economies  are  made  possible, 
it  would  appear  that  while  the  public  is  entitled  to  some  share  in  such 
benefits  as  may  result  from  such  economies,  at  the  same  time  the  com- 
pany is  entitled  to  a  reward  for  effecting  the  results  described.  City  of 
Beloit  v.Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  285. 

46.  A  public  utility  which  possesses  an  especially  economical  source 
of  supply  is  not  entitled  to  retain  the  entire  saving  effected  by  it,  but  a 
portion  of  the  saving  should  be  given  to  the  public  in  the  form  of  lower 
rates.  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  350, 
363,  364. 

Hours  during  which  current  is  used. 

47.  Under  any  conditions,  the  range  of  hours  of  current  use  is  as 
much  a  part  of  the  schedule  as  the  rates  themselves.  In  re  Appl.  Merrill 
Ry.  Sc  Ltg.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  148,  165. 

Relation  between  consumers  and  municipality. 

48.  The  question  as  to  whether  the  rates  of  a  municipal  utility  must 
be  such  that  the  cost  of  service  shall  rest  entirely  upon  the  consumers  is 
one  which  depends  upon  the  circumstances  for  its  answer,  for  the  rates 
must  be  fair  to  the  consumers  as  well  as  to  the  owners  of  the  utility  and 
the  actual  cost  is  not  always  the  entire  measure  of  fairness.  In  the  instant 
case,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  citizens  of  the  village  have  failed  so 
largely  to  patronize  their  own  utility,  although  they  must  have  known 
that  their  undivided  support  was  necessary  to  its  success,  it  appears  un- 
reasonable to  load  the  entire  loss  of  operation  upon  those  who  now  use 
the  service  of  the  utility.  In  re' Appl.  Browntown  Man.  Lt.  Plant,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  560,  563. 

XV.     MAXIMUM  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

49.  Maximum  rates  for  electric  service  established:  In  re  Appl. 
Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  cS:  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  311;  768;  In  re  Invest.  Milw. 
Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  G.  541;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  & 
P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  692;  1913,  13  R.  C.  19;  444;  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe 
El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  227;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914, 


Raies-Electric. — Power  rates 249 

15  R.  C.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Miin.  EL  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  189; 
In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  W.  cfc  El.  Plants,  1914,  15  R.  C.  212;  In  re  Invest. 
Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534. 

XVI   METER  RATES 

Straight  meter  rates. 

50.  Uniform  meter  rates  are,  under  normal  conditions,  indefensible 
in  that  they  do  not  follow  the  cost  of  furnishing  the  service.  Citij  of  Ripon 
V.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  34;  In  re  Appl.  Fox  River  Millg. 
Sc  P.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  135,  139;  In  re  Men.  <Sc  Mar.  Lt  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  778,  827;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717, 
735-736;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  C.  216,  223-224;  In  re 
Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  52,  54;  In  re  Service  and  Rates 
Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  350,  369. 

XVII.  METER  RENTAL. 

Paid  by  consumer.      ' 

51.  The  practice  of  exacting  a  greater  compensation  from  persons 
for  service  rendered  because  they  do  not  own  their  own  meters,  is  clearly 
in  violation  of  the  statute,  sec.  1797/77-90.  City  of  Lake  Geneva  v.  Equitable 
El.  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  203. 

Paid  by  utility. 

52.  Meter  rental  to  be  paid  by  the  utility  to  consumers  owning 
meters.     Electric  Theater  et  al.  v.  Lodi  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  7  R.  C.  745. 

XVIII.  MINIMUM  CHARGES. 
See  Minimum  Chargks. 

XIX.  OUTSIDE  CONSUMERS. 

Rates  for. 

53.  It  would  appear  to  be  just  and  reasonable  for  a  municipally 
owned  utility  to  charge  for  service  to  consumers  situated  outside  the  city 
upon  such  a  scale  of  rates  as  would  be  just  and  reasonable  for  a  private 
utility  under  similar  circumstances.  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt. 
Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  269. 

54.  Rates  established  for  consumers  situated  outside  municipal 
limits.  In  re  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260;  Douglas 
et  al.  V.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  337;  1914,  14  R.  C.  381; 
In  re  Appl.  Richland  Center  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  590. 

XX.  POWER  RATES. 

Basis  of  rates. 

55.  The  main  reason  why  electric  power  rates,  as  a  class,  are  made 
lower  than  the  rates  for  lighting,  is,  that  power  is,  as  a  rule,  used  for 


250  Rates-Electric-   Power  rates 

longer  periods  each  day  than  is  the  case  for  Hghting.     In  re  Appl.  North 
Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  89,  99. 

56.  Several  reasons  are  usually  assigned  for  the  giving  of  rates  to 
power  service  which  are  lower  than  the  rates  given  to  lighting  service. 
Among  these  reasons  are  the  low  demand  of  power  service  at  the  time  of 
the  maximum  load  upon  the  station,  and  the  desirability  of  building  up 
the  day  load.  In  the  case  of  large  installations,  however,  the  reason  is 
largely  to  be  found  in  the  necessities  of  competition.  To  get  and  retain 
the  business  the  utility  is  forced  to  supply  current  at  a  cost  no  higher  than 
that  at  which  the  individual  large  consumer  could  supply  himself  from  a 
private  plant.  In  many  instances  this  means  that  the  unit  costs  of  the 
utility  must  be  considerably  lower  than  the  unit  costs  of  the  private 
plant  to  compensate  for  the  fact  that  the  owner  of  the  private  plant  is 
often  able  to  use  the  exhaust  steam  as  a  by-product  for  heating  purposes 
and  thereby  effect  a  saving  in  other  of  his  business  expenses.  City  of 
Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  100,  125. 

57.  The  plant  is  well  adapted  to  carry  a  relatively  large  power  load, 
and  considerably  more  power  than  at  present  can  be  generated  by  this 
plant  \vithout  materially  increasing  the  operating  expenses.  The  power 
rate  to  b^  established  should  be  such  as  will  tend  to  build  up  the  business 
by  inviting  additional  installations  and  longer  daily  use  of  the  load. 
In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  762. 

Charging  electric  automobiles. 

58.  The  charging  of  automobiles  is  a  service  usually  furnished  when 
the  demand  on  the  central  station  is  light,  and  many  companies  have 
therefore  accorded  it  special  consideration  in  their  rate  schedules.  To  do 
so  appears  sound  and  in  keeping  with  the  principles  of  cost  of  service 
extensively  commented  upon  in  previous  decisions  of  the  Commission. 
Harrington  et  al.  u.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  64,  66. 

Establislmaeiit  of  rates. 

59.  Rates  for  electric  power  service  established.  In  re  Appl.  La 
Crosse  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1907,  2R.  C.  3;  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry.  c^  Ltg.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  148;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
311;  768;  In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  3  R.  G.  484; 
In  re  Appl.  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778;  In  re  Appl. 
North  Milwaukee  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  89;  State  Journal  Prig.  Co. 
et  al.  V.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon 
Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1;  City  of  Manitowoc  u.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  360;  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  6  R.  C.  506; 
In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717;  City  of  Beloit  v. 
Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  \^\\,  1  R.  C.  187;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  VaL 
Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  305;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander 
Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  406;  In  re  Invest.  Milw.  Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C. 
541;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  692; 
In  re  Appl.  New  Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  53;  In  re 
Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197;  In  re  Appl. 
Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson 
W.  <Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt. 


Raies-Elcciric. — Rcasonablen.  of  adv.  in  narfic.  cases   251 

.Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  337;  Bosencrans  et  al.  v.  Prairie  City  El.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  413;  In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  C.  584; 
In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  52;  City  of  Waukesha 
V.  Waukesha  G  .<Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  100;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington 
El.  Lt.  Sz  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  344;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Menasha, 

1913,  13  R.  C.  424;  In  re  Appl.  Mt.  Horeb  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
653;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  712;  Hood  et  al. 
V.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  227;  In  re  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  350;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  381; 
In  re  Appl.  Richland  Center  El.  Lt.  cfc  W.  Plant,  1914.  14  R.  G.  590;  Jones 
et  al.  V.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun 
Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  189;  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  W. 
6c  El.  Plants,  1914,  15  R.  G.  212;  In  re  Appl.  Burkhardt  Millg.  &  El.  P. 
Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  409;  In  re  Appl.  United  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
505;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534. 

XXI.  PUMPING  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

60.  Rates  for  municipal  pumping  established.  In  re  Appl.  Columbus 
W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  743;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
189. 

XXII.  RATE  WARS. 

Effect  on  utilities  and  on  public. 

61.  Rate  wars  have  a  demoralizing  effect  upon  business  methods 
and  practices  and  usually  result  in  future  dissatisfaction  and  strife.  In 
the  public  utility  field  they  are  so  clearly  against  public  policy  that  they 
should  under  no  circumstances  be  permitted.  Kenosha  El.  By.  Co.  v. 
Kenosha  G.  6c  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  119,  121-122;  In  re  Invest.  T.  M.  E.  B. 
6c  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  541,  551. 

XXIII.  REASONABLENESS  OF  ADVANGE  IN  RATES  IN 

PARTIGULAR  GASES. 

Advance  deferred. 

62.  Advance  in  rates  deferred  until  such  time  as  the  utility  should 
keep  its  accounts  in  conformity  to  law.  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  6c  P. 
Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52. 

Classification  of  motion  picture  arc  as  lighting. 

63.  Applicant  wishes  to  increase  the  rate  for  a  moving  picture  arc 
which  has  been  classified  as  power  and  given  a  low  rate.  This  arc  is  on 
the  same  circuit  as  the  ordinary  lighting  load  and  is  used  at  the  time  of 
the  peak  load  of  the  plant.  Held:  The  question  at  issue  is  one  of  classifi- 
cation rather  than  of  rates.  The  cost  of  service  for  a  moving  picture  arc 
is  about  the  same  as  for  general  illumination,  especially  where  the  electric 
plant  is  operated  only  at  night,  as  in  the  present  case,  and  where  the  use 


252      Rates-Electric. —  Reasonablen.  of  adv.  in  partic.  cases 


of  the  arc  is  entirely  limited  to  the  hours  of  commercial  lighting.  The 
applicant  is  authorized  to  classify  moving  picture  arcs  under  lighting 
rates.     In  re  Appl.  Bruce  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  474. 

Commercial  lighting  rates. 

64.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  advances  in  commercial 
lighting  rates  was  passed  upon  in  the  following  cases:  In  re  Appl.  La 
Crosse  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  3;  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry.  6c  Lt.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  148;  In  re  Appl.  North  Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
89;  In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  System,  1909,  3  R.  G.  484;  In  re 
Appl.  Cumberland  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1909,  4  R.  G.  214;  In  re  Appl. 
Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  397;  In  re  Appl.  Durand  Lt. 
&:  P.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  334;  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  506;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138;  In  re 
Appl.  Village  of  Whitehall.  1912,  9  R.  G.  479;  In  re  Appl.  New  Glarus 
Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  53;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Arcadia, 
1912,  11  R.  G.  216;  In  re  Appl.  Chetek  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  227; 
In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  8c  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260;  In  re  Appl. 
Neshkoro  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt. 
&  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  344;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Menasha,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  424;  In  re  Appl.  Endeavor  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  448; 
In  re  Appl.  ML  Horeb.  Hi.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  653;  In  re  Appl. 
Village  of  Withee,  1914,  13  R.  G.  704;  In  re  Appl.  Gilmanton  Mill  and  El. 
Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  152;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  350;  In  re  Appl.  Burkhardt  Millg.  &  El.  P.  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  409;  In  re  Appl.  Browntown  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  560. 

Minimum  charges. 

65.  Utility  authorized  to  establish  a  minimum  charge.  In  re  Appl. 
Monticello  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  265;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Valley 
Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  12  R:  G.  548;  In  re  Appl.  Richland  Center  El. 
Li.  &  W.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  590;  In  re  City  of  Manitowoc,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
697;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Manitowoc  as  El.  6c  Water  Utility,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
212;  In  re  Appl.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  517. 

Power  rates. 

66.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  advances  in  electric  power 
rates  was  passed  upon  in  the  following  cases:  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse 
Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  3;  In  re  Appl.  Merrill  Ry.  cfc  Ltg.  Co.,  1907. 
2  R.  G.  148;  In  re  Appl.  North  Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  89; 
In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Lt.  System,  1909-,  3  R.  G.  484;  In  re  Appl. 
H.  T.  Windsor  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  171;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  & 
W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  397;  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  506;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Val.  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717;  In  re 
Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  6c  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138;  In  re  Appl.  New  Glarus 
Mun.  El.  Lt.  6c  W.  Plant,  1912, 11  R.  G.  53;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  6c 
Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  6c  P.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  52;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  6c  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
344;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Menasha,  1913,  13  R.  G.  424;  In  re  Appl.  Mt. 
Horeb  Ht.  Lt.  6c  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  653;  In  re  Service  6c  Rates  Stevens 


Raies-Electric. — Reasonableness  of — maiters  considered    253 

PL  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  350;  In  re  AppL  Burkhardt  Millg.  &  EL  P.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  409;  In  re  AppL  Rhinelander  Power  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  783. 

Revision  of  rates. 

67.  Utility  authorized  to  put  into  effect  a  revised  schedule  in  order  to 
eliminate  inequalities.  In  re  AppL  Fox  River  Millg.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1907, 
2  R.  C.  135;  In  re  AppL  Alma  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  144;  In  re  AppL 
Chetek  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908.  2  R.  C.  662. 

Street  lighting  rates. 

68.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  advances  in  street  lighting 
rates  was  passed  upon  in  the  following  cases:  In  re  AppL  ML  Horeb  EL 
Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  44;  In  re  AppL  Village  of  Whitehall,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
479;  In  re  AppL  Chippewa  Val.  Rij.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  500;  In  re 
AppL  New  Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  PlanU  1912,  11  R.  G.  53;  In  re  AppL 
Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  G.  216;  In  re  AppL  Chetek  Lt.  &  P.  Co,, 
1912,  11  R.  G.  227;  In  re  AppL  Neshkoro  LL  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52; 
In  re  AppL  Darlington  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  344;  In  re  AppL 
ML  Horeb  Ht.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  653;  In  re  AppL  Village  of 
Withee,  1914,  13  R.  G.  704;  In  re  Service  Sc  Rates  Stevens  PL  Ltg.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  350;  In  re  AppL  Browntown  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  560. 

XXIV.     REASONABLENESS    OF    RATES— MATTERS    GONSID- 
ERED  IN  DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

Comparative  data. 

69.  In  order  to  arrive  at  a  schedule  of  reasonable  rates,  a  basis  of 
normal  and  reasonable  costs  must  be  established.  It  is  not  enough  merely 
to  take  an  average  of  expenses  for  a  given  period,  but  expenses  must  be 
obtained  in  detail  for  a  sufficiently  long  period,  and  the  details  must  be 
studied  and  analyzed  and  compared  with  the  costs  of  similar  plants.  In 
re  AppL  Neshkoro  LL  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52,  59-60. 

Conditions  inherent  in  the  business. 

70.  It  is  impossible  to  discuss  any  rate  schedule  except  in  the  light 
of  conditions  inherent  in  the  business.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  28;  In  re  AppL  Jefferson  Mun.  EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910, 

5  R.  G.  555,  563. 

Cost  of  service. 

71.  Reasonable  rates  can  only  be  based  upon  normal  and  reasonable 
cost  of  service,  which  means  that  the  operating  expenses  and  the  in- 
vestment should  be  normal  and  not  excessive,  in  view  of  the  conditions 
under  which  the  utihty  must  be  operated.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc 
EL  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  288;  In  re  AppL  Durand  LL  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911, 

6  R.  G.  334,  336;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  EL  Co.,  1911,  6 
R.  C.  353,  355;  In  re  AppL  Red  Cedar  Valley  EL  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  717, 
721;  //J  re  AppL  La  Crosse  G.  Sc  EL  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  174-175. 


254     Rates-Electric. — Reasonableness  of — matters  considered 

Cost  of  service — Equipment  rental. 

72.  The  cost  of  equipment  rental  paid  by  the  appHcant  in  the  present 
case  seems  to  partake  largely  of  the  characteristics  of  interest,  deprecia- 
tion and,  perhaps,  taxes  as  well.  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  732. 

Local  conditions. 

73.  In  passing  upon  rate  schedules  it  is  often  necessary  to  consider 
local  conditions  as  well  as  the  economic  principles  upon  which  they 
should  rest.  In  re  Appl.  North  Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  89, 
102-103;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  28;  In  re 
Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.El.Lt.  cfc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  563. 

Relation  between  investment  and  growth  of  business. 

74.  In  determining  the  reasonableness  of  rates  careful  inquiries 
should  be  directed  to  determine  the  relation  between  the  investment  line 
and  the  growth  of  business  line  at  the  particular  period  or  year  upon 
which  the  determination  of  the  cost  of  service  and,  therefore,  the  rates 
^re  to  be  determined.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
187,  289-290. 


XXV.     REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR  CASES. 

Additions  to  schedule. 

75.  Application  to  establish  certain  rate  provisions.  In  re  Appl.  Ft. 
Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  729. 

Adjustment  or  revision  of  rates. 

76.  Investigation  of  applications  to  adjust  or  revise  rates.  In  re 
Appl.  Portage  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  258;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Valley 
Ry.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  311;  In  re  Appl.  Medford  Lt.  Sz  Ht.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  421;  In  re  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  Sc  Ry.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
190;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Man.  El.  Lt.  d^  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555; 
In  re  Appl.  Eagle  River  Lt.  <k  \V.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  521;  In  re  Appl.  Chip- 
pewa Valley  Ry.  Lt.  <&  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  305;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville 
Mun.El.  Lt.  <fc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  Sc 
Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.'449;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  G.  Sc  El. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  324. 

Book  charge  for  power — Interdependent  companies. 

77.  An  excessively  low  book  charge  for  power  suppUed  by  one  of  two 
interdependent  companies  to  the  other  is  not  necessarily  conclusive  on 
the  Commission,  for  the  Commission  can  no  more  recognize  such  a  charge 
as  proper  than  it  could  an  unreasonably  high  book  charge.  A  revision  of 
the  power  expense  to  meet  the  existing  conditions  is  therefore  made  in 
the  instant  case.  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14 
R.  C.  350,  363. 


Rates-Electric. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases     255 


Competitive  rates. 

78.  Investigation  of  rates  of  competing  utilities  to  eliminate  alleged 
undesirable  practices.  Kenosha  EL  Ry.  Co.  v.  Kenosha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911, 
8  R.  C.  119;  In  re  Invest.  Milwaukee  Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  10 
R.  C.  613;  In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  C.  584. 

Discriminatory  rates. 

79.  Investigation  of  alleged  unjustly  discriminatory  rates.  In  re 
Invest.  R.  Connor  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  80;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Valley  Ry. 
Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  692;  1913,  13  R.  C.  19,  444;  Kittleson  et  al.  v. 
Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  485;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo 
Mun.  W.  <k  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534. 

Discriminatory  and  excessive  rates. 

80.  Investigation  of  alleged  unjustly  discriminatory  and  excessive 
rates.  In  re  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778;  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  Ross  et  al.  v. 
Burkhardt  Millg.  <Sc  El.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139;  Cunningham  et  al.  v. 
Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  <Sc  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  302;  City  of  Beloit  v. 
Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187;  Electric  Theater  et  al.  v.  Lodi  El. 
Lt.  &  P.  Plant,  1911,  7  R.  C.  745;  Superior  Comnil.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior 
W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service 
Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15 
R.  C.  189. 

Excessive  rates. 

81.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  rates.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon 
Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  360;  In  re  Madison  Gas  cfc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  152;  City  of 
Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  406;  Douglass  et  al.  v. 
Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  337;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha' 
G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  100;  In  re  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
259;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  712;  Hood  et  al. 
v.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  227;  Douglass  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  381;  In  re  Appl.  United  Heat  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  of  Delavan, 
1914,  15  R.  G.  505. 

Overcharges. 

82.  Investigation  of  alleged  overcharges.  In  re  Invest.  Northwestern 
Ll.&P.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  59. 

Pumping  rates. 

83.  Investigation  of  municipal  pumping  rates.  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee 
El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  743. 

Reduction  in  rates. 

84.  Reduction  in  rates  ordered  notwithstanding  uncertainty  due  to 
failure  of  utility  to  keep  accounts  required  by  law.  City  of  Rhinelander  v. 
Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  406. 


256     Rates-Electric. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases  .^ 

Street  lighting  rates. 

85.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  street  lighting  rates.  Dodgeville 
V.  Dodgeville  El.  L.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  392. 

XXVI.  RECONNECTION  CHARGES. 

Establisliinent  of. 

86.  Charges  for  reconnection  of  service  established.  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  Cunningham 
et  al.  V.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  302;  City  of 
Beloit  V.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187;  In  re  Invest.  Miliv. 
Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant, 
1912,  11  R.  C.  197;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C. 
449;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  324; 
In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  C.  584;  In  re  Appl.  Ft. 
Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  729;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Wau- 
kesha G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  100;  In  re  Madison  G.  d:  El.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  259;  In  re  Appl.  Mt.  Horeb  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  653; 
In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  712;  Jones  et  al.  v. 
Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun. 
El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  189;  In  re  Appl.  United  Ht.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  505;  In  re  Appl.  Whitewater  El  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  517;  In  re 
Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sc  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534. 

XXVII.     SERVICE   CHARGES. 

Establishmeiit  of. 

87.  Lighting. — Service  charges  for  electric  lighting  service  estab- 
lished. In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  3;  1911,  8  R,  C. 
138;  In  re  Invest.  Milw.  Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  10  R.  C.  613; 
In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  692;  In  re 
Appl.  New  Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  53;  In  re  Invest. 
Electric  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  C.  584;  In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Val. 
Ry.  Li.  cfc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  19;  444;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Withee, 
1914,  13  R.  C.  704. 

Power. — Service  charges  for  electric  power  service  established.  In  re 
Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  3;  Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt 
Millg.  Sc  El  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc 
El  LI  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  360;  In  re  Appl  Red  Cedar  Valley  El  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  717;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa  Val  Ry.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C. 
305;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  406;  In  re 
Invest.  Milw.  Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  10  R.  C.  613;  In  re  Appl 
New  Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  S:  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  53;  In  re  Invest. 
Evansville  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197;  In.  re  Appl  Columbus 
W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Appl  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt. 
Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  337;  Rosencrans  et  a/,  v.  Prairie  City  El  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  413; 
In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rafes  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  C.  584;  In  re  Appl. 
Neshkoro  Li.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  52;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha 


Rates-Electric. — Street  lighting  rates 257 

G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  100;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  P. 
Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  344;  In  re  Appl.  Mt.  Iloreb  Hi.  Lt.  d:  P.  Co.,  1914,  13 
R.  C.  653;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  EL  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  712; 
Hood  et  at.  v.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  227;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin 
Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El. 
Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  189;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant, 
1914,  15  R.  C.  534;  In  re  Appl.  Rhinelander  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  783. 

XXVIII.  SHORT  TIME  SERVICE. 

Rates  for. 

88.  Rates  for  short  time  or  temporary  electric  service  established. 
In  re  Appl.  H.  T.  Windsor  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  171;  In  re  Invest.  Milwaukee 
Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  C.  541;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  &  W. 
Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 
12  R.  G.  729;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
189;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sz  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534. 

XXIX.  SPEGIAL  GONTRAGT  RATES. 

Status  of. 

89.  G.  S.  Morris,  the  Wisconsin  Granite  Go.  and  the  Wright  Mills 
are  at  present  purchasing  current  for  power  under  special  contracts.  The 
rates  at  which  these  consumers  are  charged  are  not  the  same  as  the  rates 
for  the  regular  schedule,  but  since  the  service  is  not  similar  to  that  of 
other  users  it  cannot  be  concluded  on  that  ground  that  the  rates  are 
unjustly  discriminatory.  It  appears  inadvisable  to  change  the  rates  under 
these  contracts  at  this  time  because  of  possible  disturbance  of  the  whole 
business.  The  contracts  will  be  at  all  times  under  the  supervision  of  the 
Commission.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
121,  137. 

90.  The  special  contract  for  power  which  the  company  has  given  shall 
remain  in  force  until  it  expires,  but  it  shall  not  be  renewed.  In  re  Appl, 
United  Heat  Li.  Sc  P.  Co.  of  Delavan,  19U,  15  R.  G.  505,  515. 

XXX.  STREET  LIGHTING  RATES. 

Basis  of  rates. 

91.  As  the  burning  period  of  the  street  lamps  in  the  present  case  is 
liable  to  considerable  fluctuation,  it  would  be  more  satisfactory  to  estab- 
lish a  rate  composed  of  a  fixed  and  a  variable  charge,  instead  of  a  fixed 
amount  per  lamp  per  year.  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 
IIR.G.  449,463. 

92.  Certain  investment  hazards  are  greater  under  short  term  con- 
tracts than  for  the  longer  periods,  consequently  a  greater  annual  amortiza- 
tion charge  is  necessary  on  the  annual  basis.  Should  this  service  be  con- 
tracted for  on  a  basis  of  ten  years  service,  the  company  will  undoubtedly 
be  willing  to  reduce  the  rate  somewhat.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public 
Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  138. 


258 Rates-Electric. — Street  lighting  rates 

Contract  provisions. 

93.  As  a  rule  the  city  is  the  only  user  of  street  lighting  service,  and 
as  the  total  cost  of  such  service  must  first  be  determined  before  a  fair  rate 
per  unit  can  be  established,  the  logical  conclusion  naturally  follows  that 
payment  can  as  well  be  made  for  the  service  of  the  system  as  a  whole  as 
for  a  unit  of  such  service,  provided  there  is  to  be  no  flexibility  in  the  extent 
of  the  system  contracted  for.  But  such  flexibility  must  ordinarily  be  pro- 
vided for  to  meet  the  changeable  requirements  of  the  city.  Since  these 
changes  consist  chiefly  of  the  addition  of  lamps,  and  the  relation  of  the  num- 
ber so  added  to  the  total  number  provided  measures  fairly  well  the  increased 
cost  to  the  utility,  it  is  believed  that  the  individual  lamp  will,  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  most  satisfactorily  serve  as  the  measure  of  payment  for  the  system 
as  a  whole,  and  especially  for  the  amount  of  service  added  above  the 
original  provision  of  the  contract.  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  EL  Lt.  &  R. 
Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  G.  586,  G70. 

Establishment  of  rates. 

94.  Rates  for  electrical  street  lighting  established.  City  of  Ripon  v. 
Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  & 
W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  G.  353;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479;  In  re 
Appl.  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  305;  City  of  Rhine- 
lander  V.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  406;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of 
Whitehall,  1912,  9  R.  G.  479;  In  re  Appl.  New  Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W. 
Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  53;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912, 
11  R.  G.  197;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Arcadia,  1912,  11  R.  G.  216;  In  re 
Appl.  Chetek  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  227;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  & 
Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm., 

1913,  12  R.  G.  260;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
337;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52;  City  of  Waukesha 
V.  Waukesha  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El. 
Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  344;  In  re  Appl.  Mt.  Horeb  Ht.  Lt.  &  P. 
Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  653;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Withee,  1914,  13  R.  G.  704; 
In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  712;  In  re  Stevens  Pt. 
Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350;  Douglas  et  al.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  381;  Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
485;  In  re  Appl.  Browntown  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  560;  City  of 
Watertown  v.  Watertown  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  604;  Jones  et  al.  v. 
Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121;  In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie 
Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  189;  In  re  Appl.  United  Ht.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 

1914,  15  R.  G.  505;  In  re  Appl.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  <Sc  El.  Plant,  1914,  15 
R.  G.  534. 

Provisions  for  outage. 

95.  Since  no  system  of  street  lighting  so  far  designed  has  been  entirely 
free  from  outage  of  individual  lamps,  it  seems  that  provision  should  be 
made  for  a  reasonable  amount  of  outage.  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca  El. 
Lt.  &  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  C.  586.  672. 


Rates-Express.— Minimum  charges  259 


RATES— EXPRESS. 


I.  ADVANCE    IN  RATES. 

II.  INTERSTATE    AND    INTRASTATE    RATES. 

III.  MAKING    RATES— ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. 

IV.  MINIMUM    CHARGES. 

V.  REASONABLENESS    OF    RATES— MATTERS      CONSIDERED    IN 
DETERMINING    REASONABLENESS. 

VI.  REASONABLENESS    OF    RATES    IN    PARTICULAR    CASES. 


I.  ADVANCE  IN  RATES. 

Grounds  for  advance. 

1 .  Changes  in  rates  or  classification  which  have  the  effect  of  disturbing 
long  estabhshed  business  conditions  which  have  grown  up  in  reUance  upon 
the  continuance  of  the  existing  system  of  rates  or  the  existing  classification 
should  not  be  made  except  for  good  reasons.  Wisconsin  Box  Co.  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  605,  617;  M.  Carpenter  Baking 
Co.  et  al.  V.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  1,  13. 

II.  INTERSTATE  AND  INTRASTATE  RATES. 

Uniformity  of. 

2.  While  it  is  not  absolutely  essential,  it  is  decidedly  preferable  that 
the  interstate  and  intrastate  graduates  or  scales  regulating  the  relative 
charges  for  shipments  of  different  weights,  and  the  classifications  regulat- 
ing the  relative  charges  for  different  commodities,  should  be  as  nearly 
the  same  as  the  conditions  under  which  the  two  classes  of  business  are 
conducted  will  permit.    In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C.  1,  28. 

'ill.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

Cost  of  service — Movement  and  terminal  expenses. 

3.  The  express  service  consists  of  two  major  parts,  the  terminal 
service,  the  cost  of  which  is  ver>'  nearly  independent  of  the  length  of  haul, 
and  the  movement  service,  the  cost  of  which  varies  almost  directly  with 
the  distance.    In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C.  1,  34. 

Railroad  cost. 


4.  Inasmuch  as  the  express  company  directly  bears  practically  all  the 
terminal  expenses,  the  railroad  cost  of  handling  shipments  increases  almost 
as  fast  as  the  distance,  so  that  the  railroad,  if  receiving  the  same  per  cent 
of  charges  on  all  shipments,  derives  more  profit  from  the  short  than  the 
the  long  hauls.    In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C.  1,  34. 

IV.  MINIMU^f  CHARGES. 
Purpose  of  charge. 

5.  Careful  analysis  of  express  operations  reveals  that  a  considerable 
expense  is  incurred,  for  every  shipment,  which  is  practically  the  same  for 


260 Rates-Express. — Minimum  charges 

all  whether  the  shipments  weigh  one  ounce  or  fifty  pounds,  and  whether 
they  move  between  stations  ten  or  a  hundred  miles  apart.  The  shipment 
cost  is  the  fixed  mininjum  cost  of  handling  applying  to  all  shipments.  In 
re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  36. 

V.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS  CONSIDERED  IN 
DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

Competitive  conditions. 

6.  While  questions  pertaining  to  classification  and  charges  under 
competitive  commercial  conditions,  when  taken  as  a  whole,  may  be  of 
diminishing  importance,  and,  in  most  respects,  secondary  to  the  cost  of 
the  service,  they  are  in  many  instances  important  enough  to  vitally  affect 
the  rates  of  transportation.  M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo 
cfc  Co.  e/ aZ.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  1,  11.      • 

Cost  of  service. 

7.  One  of  the  most  important  elements  in  determining  the  reasonable- 
ness of  express  rates  is  the  cost  of  performing  the  service.  In  re  Invest. 
Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  19. 

Number  of  packages. 


8.  The  number  of  packages  included  in  a  shipment  affects  the  cost 
of  handling,  but  the  charge  for  extra  packages  in  a  shipment  can  be  made 
commensurate  with  the  cost  by  proper  rules  in  regard  to  aggregating.  In 
re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  36-37. 

Risk. 

9.  The  insurance  element  as  regards  value  and  liability  to  damage  is 
partly  taken  account  of  in  the  shipment,  weight  and  weight-distance 
costs,  so  that  for  the  ordinary  shipment  it  need  not  be  considered,  and  the 
additional  cost  for  the  shipments  which  are  extraordinary  in  these  regards 
can  be  taken  care  of  through  higher  classification  or  by  additions  to  the 
regular  charges.    In  re  Invest.  Express-Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  37.* 

Shipment  costs. 


10.  Shipment  costs  include  the  greater  part  of  the  express  company 
costs  and  in  addition  a  small  part  of  the  railroad  costs.  In  re  Invest. 
Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  37. 

Shipment  and  weight  costs. 

11.  The  shipment  and  weight  costs  are  terminal  costs  except  in  a  very 
small  part.  That  is,  they  are  costs  which  would  accrue  were  the  ship- 
ments to  merely  pass  through  th€  ordinary  steps  of  the  express  service 
without  moving  any  appreciable  distance.  In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates, 
1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  38.  , 

Size  of  shipment. 

12.  The  size  of  the  shipment  plays  a  very  important  part  in  determin- 
ing costs.  In  many  respects  it  is  of  as  great  or  greater  importance  than 
weight.    In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  37. 


Rafes-Exprcss. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases     261 

Weight  cost. 

13.  Weight  cost  includes  only  those  items  of  cost  which  vary  for 
different  shipments  in  accordance  with  their  weight  without  regard  to 
the  distance  the  shipments  are  carried.  A  considerable  part  of  the  ex- 
press company's  expenses  and  a  smaller  part  of  the  railroad's  are  of  this 
nature.    In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G.  1,  37-38. 

Weight-distance  cost. 

14.  The  weight-distance  cost  includes  all  the  costs  in  which  distance 
is  a  factor.    In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C.  1,  38. 

VI.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR  CASES. 

Rates  in  generaL 

15.  Petitioners  allege  exorbitant  express  charges  between  Wisconsin 
points  on  mixed  shipments  of  baked  goods  consisting  mostly  of  bread 
with  a  small  proportion  of  cake.  Respondent  express  companies  formerly 
transported  bread  over  their  respective  lines  at.  "general  special"  rates, 
about  20  per  cent  lower  than  their  merchandise  rates,  and  allowed  the 
same  rates  on  mixed  shipments  of  bread  and  cake  when  bread  comprised 
at  least  half  the  total  weight.  The  general  special  rate  is  ordered  rein- 
stated. M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wetts  Fargo  Sc  Co.  et  al.,  1911, 
8  R.  C.  1,  15. 

16.  Complaint  that  the  rates  charged  by  the  respondent  express 
companies  for  the  transportation  of  express  matter  between  Milwaukee 
and  other  points  in  Wisconsin  are  grossly  excessive,  unreasonable  and 
extortionate.  The  petitioner  alleges  unreasonable  and  discriminatory 
practices  and  conditions  with  respect  to  the  schedule  of  graduated  charges 
for  shipments  of  less  than  100  lb.;  with  respect  to  the  classification  of 
merchandise,  under  which  multiples  of  the  regular  merchandise  rates 
are  charged  upon  certain  classes  of  merchandise;  with  respect  to  the  rules 
and  regulations  regarding  the  aggregating  of  weights  and  the  prescribing 
of  minimum  weights  according  to  the  dimensions  of  packages;  and  with 
respect  to  the  return  of  empty  containers.  The  petitioner  further  alleges 
that  the  respondent  companies  have  failed  to  provide  reasonable  joint 
rates;  that  their  minimum  charges  are  excessive;  and  that  the  ounce 
rates  upon  certain  kinds  of  express  matter  are  granted  only  subject  to 
the  unlawful  and  discriminatory  condition  that  the  charges  on  such 
shipments  be  prepaid.  Respondent  ordered  to  discontinue  present  rates 
and  to  put  into  efTect  the  rates  approved  by  the  Commission.  In  re 
Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  C.  1. 

17.  The  date  on  which  the  order  issued  in  this  matter  on  May  20, 
1913  (12  R.  C.  1,  43),  should  become  effective  has  been  postponed 
from  time  to  time  pending  the  decision  of  the  appeal  from  the  order  to 
the  circuit  court  for  Dane  county  and  the  making  by  the  Commission  of 
certain  additional  investigations.  The  latest  postponement  makes  the 
order  effective  on  February  1,  1914.  The  respondent  express  companies, 
however,  desire  to  put  into  effect  rates  for  temporar>^  use  which  will  be  in 
harmony  with  the  interstate  express  rates  recently  established  by  the 


262     Rates-Express. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  to  become  effective  February  1,  1914. 
Held:  Though  the  rates  proposed  by  the  express  companies  do  not 
entirely  agree  with  the  Commission's  ideas  of  what  those  rates  should  be, 
it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Commission  that,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  rates 
as  proposed  will  confer  many  benefits  on  the  shippers  of  the  state,  these 
rates  should  be  permitted  to  become  effective  for  the  time  being  with  the 
exception  of  such  as  are  higher  than  the  interstate  rates  between  the  same 
blocks  would  be.     In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  C.  666. 

18.  Complaint  that  the  rate  of  75  cts.  per  100  lb.  on  laundry  moving 
between  Manitowoc  and  Green  Bay  is  excessive.  Held:  The  rate  of 
75  cts.  is  high  for  the  short  distance  involved.  If  defects  encountered 
in  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission's  plan  of  rates  are  due  only  to  a 
rigid  adherence  to  the  method  of  computation,  the  defects  should  be 
remedied.  The  respondent  is  ordered  to  discontinue  its  charges  under 
Scale  No.  5  for  the  transportation  of  express  matter  between  block  537, 
sub-block  H,  and  block  538,  sub-block  0,  and  substitute  therefor  the 
charges  under  Scale  No.  2.  Gray  &  Zenter  v.  American  Express  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  817. 

Single  package  rule. 

19.  A  rule  of  an  express  company,  requiring  that  only  commodities 
intended  for  a  single  consignee  shall  be  shipped  in  a  single  package,  is  a 
reasonable  regulation.  Souvenir  Novelty  Co.  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  731. 

RATES— GAS. 

Discounts  for  prompt  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations,  19. 
Discrimination  in  gas  rates,  see  Discrimination.  28-29. 


I.  FLAT    rates. 

II.  FUEL    AND    LIGHTING    RATES. 

Ill  MAKING    RATES— ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. 

IV.  METER    RENTALS. 

V.  MINIMUM    CHARGES. 

VI.  REASONABLENESS  OF  ADVANCE  IN   RATES  IN   PARTICULAR 

CASES. 

VII.  REASONABLENESS    OF    RATES— MATTERS    CONSIDERED     IN 
DETERMINING    REASONABLENESS. 

VIII.  REASONABLENESS    OF  RATES    IN  PARTICULAR    CASES. 

IX.  RECONNECTION    CHARGE. 

X.  SERVICE    CHARGES 

XL  STREET  LIGHTING    RATES. 


I.  FjLAT  RATES. 

Generally  undesirable.  "^  i^ 

1.  Flat  rates  are  seldom  based  on  cost  analysis,  and  hence  it  seems 
for  the  best  interests  of  everyone  to  do  away  with  them  if  possible. 
Lothrop  V.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479,  488. 


Rates-Gas. — Making  rates — elements  considered         263 


II.  FUEL  AND  LIGHTING  RATES. 

Two-rate  system. 

2.  The  system  of  charging  a  higher  rate  for  gas  used  for  Hghting 
purposes  than  the  charge  for  the  product  used  for  fuel  purposes  has  been 
in  efTect  in  a  considerable  number  of  cities  and  finds  its  defense  in  the  theory 
that  the  rates  should  vary  with  regard  to  the  value  of  the  service  furnished. 
We  are  inclined  to  believe  that  the  logic  by  which  this  system  of  charging 
has  been  defended  is  founded  upon  incorrect  reasoning.  There  is  also  a 
very  pronounced  tendency  to  depart  from  the  two-rate  system.  In  view 
of  these  facts  there  appears  no  reason  why  the  two  rates  should  be  con- 
tinued in  respondent's  schedule  and  in  the  rates  provided.  City  of  Ripon 
V.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  48;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas 
Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  319. 

III.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

Cost  of  service. 

3.  As  the  earnings  of  the  utilities  are  derived  from  the  rates  they  are 
charging  for  services,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the  cost  of  the  service  is 
one  of  the  leading  elements  that  must  be  considered  in  fixing  such  rates. 
It  is  not  the  only  element  upon  which  the  rates  depend,  but  in  this  and 
many  other  cases  it  is  the  most  important  element.  In  re  Appl.  Manito- 
woc Gas  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  163,  171;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison 
G.  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  740;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt:  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  245. 

4.  It  has  been  demonstrated  repeatedly  that  the  total  cost  of  gas 
service  per  1000  cubic  feet  consumed  decreases  with  increased  consump- 
tion.    City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  352. 

Distribution    of  losses    resulting    from    certain    classes    of 

service. 

5.  There  is  a  difference  in  the  cost  of  serving  the  various  consumers, 
and  the  cost  to  the  smallest  consumer  is  more  than  he  can  be  required  to 
pay.  '  Should  the  rate  to  such  users  be  based  entirely  upon  costs,  they 
would  stop  taking  gas.  This  is  recognized  in  the  preparation  of  rate 
schedules.  It  is  necessary  to  spread  the  loss  resulting  from  supplying 
the  smallest  users  below  cost  over  a  large  portion  of  the  consumption. 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  441,  487. 

Output,  capacity  and  consumer  costs. 

6.  Consumer  data  are  an  essential  part  of  rate  material.  Without 
them  it  is  impossible  to  prepare  a  schedule  which  would  be  accurate  and 
practicable.     City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5.  R.  C.  1,  57. 

7.  In  general  the  principles  which  govern  the  cost  analysis  of  electric 
rates  apply  to  gas  rates,  but  in  a  lesser  degree.  This  is  due  to  the  difference 
in  the  nature  of  the  gas  business.  It  is  not  necessary  to  have  such  large 
plant  capacity  to  meet  the  maximuni  daily  load  or  demand,  since  through 
the  use  of  the  gas  holder,  in  which  the  product  may  be  stored,  the  producing 


264 Rates-Gas. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

capacity  of  the  plant  may  be  operated  at  a  uniform  rate  during  the  day, 
the  excess  of  production  during  the  hours  of  small  demand  being  stored 
and  put  into  the  distribution  system  when  the  demand  exceeds  the  capacity. 
The  holder,  however,  does  not  provide  for  the  large  seasonal  fluctuation, 
nor  does  it  meet  perfectly  the  requirements  of  the  daily  variations.  City 
of  Rip  on  V.  Bipon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  56;  In  re  Appl.  Green  Bay 
Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  101,  104;  City  of  Bacine  v.  Bacine  Gas  Lt.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  309. 

Cost  of  service — Taxes. 

8.  Taxes  are  costs  over  which  the  utility  has  no  control  and  their 
effect  upon  the  cost  per  unit  must  be  given  serious  weight  in  the  deter- 
mination of  a  rate  schedule.  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  309,  315-316;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,' 
13  R.  C.  100,  115-116;  Yanko  et  al.  v.  Portage  American  Gas  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  136,  141. 

Economies  in  operation. 

9.  It  is  expected,  and  is  quite  generally  found  to  be  the  fact,  that  in 
combined  plants  the  rates  of  general  expenses  or  management  costs  will 
be  less  than  in  the  case  of  single  utilities  or  plants  operating  a  water,  gas, 
electric,  or  electric  railway  property  alone.  A  combination  of  utilities, 
such  as  this  case  presents,  may  offer  many  opportunities  for  economies 
not  possible  in  a  single  utility.  Where  such  economies  are  made  possible, 
it  would  appear  that  while  the  pubhc  is  entitled  to  some  share  in  such 
benefits  as  may  result  from  such  economies,  at  the  same  time  the  company 
is  entitled  to  a  reward  for  effecting  the  results  described.  City  of  Beloit 
V.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  285. 

IV.  METER  RENTALS. 

Paid  by  utility. 

10.  Where  a  consumer  owns  the  meter  the  utility  is  to  acquire  the 
meter  or  pay  an  annual  rental  of  50  cts.  to  the  owner.  Lothrop  v.  Village 
of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479,  488. 

V.  MINIMUM  CHARGES. 
See  Minimum  Charges. 

VI.  REASONABLENESS  OF  ADVANCE  IN  RATES  IN 

PARTICULAR  CASES. 

Question  of  reasonableness  determined. 

11.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  advance  in  rates  was  passed 
upon  in  the  following  cases:  7/7  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1908, 
3  R.  C.  163;  In  re  Appl.  La  Cros.se  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138;  In  re 
Appl.  Manitowoc  G.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  325. 


Raies-Gas. — Reasonableness^ of  in  particular  cases        265 


VII.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS  CONSIDERED 
IN  DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

Cost  of  service. 

12.  Rates  for  the  services  rendered  by  public  utilities  should  very 
largely  be  based  upon  the  cost  to  the  plants  of  furnishing  the  services. 
City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  287. 

13.  It  is  well  known  that  the  cost  of  gas  service  per  1000  cubic  feet 
consumed  decreases  with  increased  consumption.  Lothrop  v.  Village  of 
Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479,  491. 

Relation  between  investment  and  growth  of  business. 

14.  In  determining  the  reasonableness  of  rates  careful  inquiries 
should  be  directed  to  determine  the  relation  between  the  investment  line 
and  the  growth  of  business  line  at  the  particular  period  or. year  upon 
which  the  determination  of  the  cost  of  service  and,  therefore,  the  rates  are 
to  be  determined.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
187,  289-290. 


VIII.     REASONABLENESS  OP  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR  GASES. 

Adjustment  or  revision  of  rates. 

15.  Petition  for  adjustment  or  revision  of  rates.  Lothrop  v.  Village  of 
Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  G.  &  El.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G  324. 

Excessive  rates. 

16.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  rates.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon 
Li.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  228;  In  re  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  152;  City  of  Neenah 
V.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  &  P.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  477;  8  R.  G.  251;  Meyer  et  al.  v. 
Sheboygan  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  439;  1913,  11  R.  G.  309;  City  of  Mil- 
waukee V.  Milwaukee  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  441;  City  of  Waukesha  v. 
Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100;  Yanko  et  al.  v.  Portage  Ameri- 
can Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  136;  In  re  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
259. 

Excessive  and  discriminatory  rates. 

17.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  and  discriminatory  rates. 
State  Journal  Prig.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501. 
Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  Sc  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
302;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187;  Superior 
Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704;  Jones 
et  al.  V.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121. 

Optional  rates. 

18.  Investigation  of  proposed  optional  rate.  In  re  Appl.  Green  Bay 
Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  101. 


266     Rates-Gas. — Reconnection  charge 

IX.     RECONNECTION  CHARGE. 

Establishment  of. 

19.  Charges  for  reconnection  of  gas  service  established.  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  G.  <fe  EL  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501;  City  of  Racine 
V.  Racine  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228:  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  <Sc  EL 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187;  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  Sz  P.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  477;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479;  City  of  Green 
Bay  V.  Green  Bay  Gas  &  EL  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  324;  City  of  Waukesha  v. 
Waukesha  G.  <Sc  EL  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  100;  In  re  AppL  Manitowoc  Gas 
Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  325. 

X.     SERVICE  CHARGES. 

Establishment  of. 

20.  Service  charges  for  gas  service  established.  In  re  AppL  Manito- 
woc Gas  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  163;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  1. 

XI.     STREET  LIGHTING  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

21.  Rates  for  gas  street  lighting  service  established.  Yanko  et  at.  v. 
Portage  American  Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  36. 

RATES— HEATING. 

Formula  for  computing  radiation. 

1.  Upon  investigating  the  problem  of  determining  the  required  ra- 
diation, it  is  found  that  eminent  authorities  on  the  subject  advance  dif- 
ferent formulae,  but  that  they  seem  to  lead  for  the  most  part  to  about  the 
same  result.  The  most  rational  formulae  take  into  consideration  such 
factors  as  the  influence  of  the  volume  of  air  to  be  heated,  the  frequency  at 
which  the  air  is  displaced  or  renewed,  the  difference  in  room  and  outdoor 
temperature  and  the  difference  in  room  and  radiator  temperature.  Em- 
perical  formulae  less  complicated  than  this  have  been  devised  by  which 
the  required  radiation  can  be  approximated.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public 
Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121,  142. 

Reasonableness  of  advance  in  rates  in  particular  cases. 

2.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  advance  in  rates  was  passed 
upon.  In  re  AppL  La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  EL  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  in  particular  cases. 

3.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  rates  was  passed  upon  in  the 
following  cases:  In  re  Rates  Milwaukee  Central  Heating  Co.  et  at.,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  302;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C. 
100;  Jones  et  aL  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121. 


Rates -Inter  urban. — Reasonablen.  of  adv.  in  parfic.  cases      267 

Reconnection  charge. 

4.  The  charge  for  reconnection  of  heating  service  for  the  same  con- 
sumer on  the  same  premises  shall  be  $5.00.  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public 
Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  121,  151. 

RATES— INTERURBAN. 

Discrimination  in  interurban  rates,  see  Discrimination,  53-61,  64. 


I.  DISTANCE    BASIS  FOR  FARES. 

II.  MAKING    RATES— ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. 

III.  REASONABLENESS     OF  ADVANCE  IN  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR 

CASES. 

IV.  REASONABLENESS    OF    RATES    IN    PARTICULAR    CASES 
V.  TWO-CENT    FARE    LAW. 

VI.  ZONE    SYSTEM    RATES. 


I.     DISTANCE  BASIS  FOR  FARES. 

Reasonableness  of. 

1.  It  is  deemed  that  a  basic  rate  of  2  cts.  per  passenger  mile  with  a 
flat  fare  for  the  terminals  and  sub-terminals  will  best  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  interurban  service  in  the  instant  case.  In  re  Milw.  Suburban 
&  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  G.  475,  488. 

II.     MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  GONSIDERED.^ 

Development  of  business.  • 

2.  When  the  conditions  prevailing  on  the  interurban  system  as  in- 
dicated by  the  passenger  density  per  car-mile  are  considered  it  seems  best 
to  place  the  rate  at  a  figure  lower  than  the  cost  of  service  would  demand 
so  as  to  encourage  the  passenger  density  to  increase  sufficiently  to  bring 
the  revenues  to  the  point  where  they  will  bring  an  adequate  return  above 
all  expenses.  In  re  Milw.  Suburban  &  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
475,  488-489. 

Nature  of  transportation  business. 

3.  The  nature  of  the  transportation  business  is  such  as  to  make 
simplicity,  uniformity  and  stability  in  rate  schedules  desirable.  In  re 
Milw.  Suburban  <Sc  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  G.  475,  489-490. 

III.     REASONABLENESS    OF   ADVANGE    IN    RATES    IN    PAR- 
TI GULAR  GASES. 

Advance  over  rate  provided  in  franchise. 

4.  Petitioner  authorized  to  charge  a  rate  higher  than  the  maximum 
rate  provided  for  in  franchise.  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  <Sc  Northern  Tr.  Co., 
1910.  6  R.  G.  395. 


268     Rates-Interurban. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 


IV.  REASONABLENESS   OF  RATES   IN  PARTICULAR   CASES. 

Arrangement  of  fare  zones. 

5.  Investigation  of  alleged  discriminatory  arrangement  of  fare  zones. 
Vosburg  v.  Wis.  El  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  709. 

Excessive  rates. 

6.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  rates.  Deakin  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E. 
R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  306;  Fullmer  v.  Wausau  Street  R.  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  246. 

Excessive  and  discriminatory  rates. 

7.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  and  discriminatory  rates.   Lamb 

V.  Eastern  Wis.  i?.  &  L/.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  473;  Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  I. 
R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  695;  Chromaster  v.  M.  N.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  734. 

Uniform  tariffs. 

8.  Application  asking  Commission  to  prescribe  uniform  tariffs  or 
schedules  for  suburban  and  interurban  transportation.  In  re  Milw. 
Suburban  &  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  C.  475. 

"V.     TWO-CENT  FARE  LAW. 

Application  of. 

9.  Interurban  companies  do  not  come  within  the  provisions  of  the 
Two-Cent  Fare  Law  of  this  state  so  as  to  make  a  rate  of  more  than  2  cts. 
per  mile  unlawful.  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  R.  cfc  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  473. 

VI.     ZONE  SYSTEM  RATES. 

Five-cent  zones. 

10.  The  so-called  five-cent  zone  system  of  suburban  and  interurban 
rates  in  use  on  many  interurban  electric  railways  is  unscientific  and  in- 
equitable because  of  the  unequal  zone  distances  used,  the  concessions 
made  to  favored  localities  and  favored  classes  of  passengers  at  the  expense 
of  other  localities  and  other  classes  of  passengers  and  the  consequent 
shifting  of  costs,  in  the  form  of  excessive  rates,  onto  patrons  in  the  locali- 
ties or  classes  discriminated  against.  In  the  instant  case  the  one-way 
fares  charged  for  different  trips  over  the  suburban  and  interurban  lines 
of  the  two  companies  vary  widely  when  compared  on  a  passenger-mile 
basis.  This  discrimination  has  given  rise  to  other  discriminations  such  as 
those  involved  in  the  granting  of  overlapping  zones  and  special  and  round- 
trip  rates  to  favored  points.  In  re  Milw.  Suburban  &  Interurban  R.  Rates, 
1914,  13  R.  C.  475,  482-484. 

Overlapping  zones. 

11.  Where  an  interurban  station  is  only  a  short  distance  from  the 
next  zone  point  it  might  be  practicable  to  establish  overlapping  zones, 
and  permit  the  traveler  to  go  to  the  zone  point  which  would  give  him  the 
longer  ride;  but  in  the  case  of  a  station  half-way  between  two  zones,  it  is 


Rates-Railroad  269 


difficult  to  find  any  way  by  which  the  intermediate  point  can  be  given 
the  same  benefit  as  a  point  half  a  zone  removed  from  it,  without  doing  in- 
justice to  patrons  on  other  parts  of  the  line.  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  Sc 
L/.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  473,  495-496. 

Varying  zone  lengths. 

12.  The  varying  zone  lengths  are  discriminatory  not  only  to  the  peti- 
tioner but  to  other  patrons  of  the  road  and  they  should  be  revised  and 
placed  on  a  basis  equitable  to  all.  It  is  obvious  that  any  zone  system  must 
lead  to  the  payment  of  an  extra  fare  by  a  passenger  when  boarding  or 
leaving  the  cars  between  two  zone  points,  but  this  unavoidable  result 
should  be  minimized  as  much  as  possible.  A  more  equitable  plan  would  be 
the  adoption  of  increased  zones  with  lower  fares  for  each  zone  or  of  a 
mileage  system.    Yoshmg  v.  Wis.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  709,  717-718. 

RATES— RAILROAD. 

See  also  Demurrage  Charges;  Rebates  or  Concessions;  Reparation; 

Schedules    or    Tariffs;    Switching    Charges;    Terminal 

Charges;  Transit  Privil"eges;  Weights. 

Agreements  with  shippers  relating  to  rates,  see  Contract  of  Shipment, 

1-3;  Schedules  or  Tariffs,  1-3. 
Contracts  relating  to  rates,  see  Contract  of  Shipment,  1-3. 
Departure  from  published  rate  prohibited,  see  Schedules  or  Tariffs,  8-10. 
Discrimination  in  railroad  rates,  see  Discrimination,  49-53,  68-85. 
Minimum  carload  weights,  see  Weights. 
Mistake  in  quoting  rates,  see  Contract  of  Shipment,  3;  Schedules  or 

Tariffs,  9. 
Publication  of  rates,  see  Schedules  or  Tariffs,  11-16. 
Rate  wars,  power  of  Commission  to  prevent  rate  wars  between  competing 

railroads,  see  Railroad  Commission,  135. 
Transit  privileges,  granting  of  privilege,  see  Transit  Privileges. 


I.  IN    GENERAL. 

II.  ADVANCE    IN    RATES. 

III.  BRANCH    LINE    RATES. 

IV.  CARLOAD    RATES. 
V.  CLASS    RATES. 

VI.  COMMODITY    RATES. 

VII.  COMMUTATION    RATES. 

VIII.  CONCENTRATION    RATES. 

IX.  DEMURRAGE    CHARGES. 

X.  DISTANCE    BASIS    FOR    FARES. 

XL  DISTANCE    RATES. 

XII.  EMERGENCY    RATES. 

XIII.  FILING    OF    RATES. 

XIV.  FREE    SERVICE. 

XV.  FREE    OR    REDUCED    RATE    SERVICE. 

XVI.  GROUP  OR    BLANKET    RATES. 

XVII.  HOMESEEKERS*    RATES. 

XVIII.  JOINT    OR    THROUGH    RATES. 

XIX.  LOCAL    RATES. 

XX.  LOWEST    RATE    APPLICABLE. 


270  Rates-Railroad. — In  general 

— — . —  ■  ■  • —  ...  -  -  ■■  ■■  ..  ..  .      .1     ■— .,.  ■  ■■  I    ,  -    ,. ,  ..  _^ 

XXI.  MAKING    RATES— ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. 

XXII.  MAKING    RATES-GRADUATION    OF    RATES. 

XXIII.  MANUFACTURES'    RATES. 

XXIV.  MILLING    IN    TRANSIT    RATES. 

XXV.  MINIMUM    CHARGE    ON    PACKAGE    FREIGHT. 

XXVI.  NESTED, 

XXVII.  PAYMENT    OF    RATES. 

XXVIIL  PROPORTIONAL    RATES. 

XXIX.  PUBLISHED    RATE. 

XXX.  REASONABLENESS    OF    RATES. 

XXXI.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS     CONSIDERED 
IN  DETERMINING    REASONABLENESS. 

XXXII.  REASONABLENESS    OF    RATES    IN    PARTICULAR     CASES. 

XXXIII.  REDUCTION    IN    RATES. 

XXXIV.  RELATION    OF    RATES. 

^      XXXV.  SPECIAL    SERVICE    RATES. 

XXXVI  SWITCHING    RATES. 

XXXVII.  TERMINAL    CHARGE. 

XXXVIII.  TRAINLOAD    RATES. 


I.  IN  GENERAL^ 

Ante-dated  tariff,  legality  of. 

1.  The  ante-dating  of  the  new  tariff  did  not  affect  the  rights  of  the 
parties,  and  it  had  the  same  force  and  effect  as  if  dated  upon  the  day  of  its 
issue.    Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  108,  117. 

Necessity  of  filing  rates  with  the  Railroad  Commission. 

2.  All  rates  in  force  in  April  1,  1905,  should  be  filed  with  the  Com- 
mission regardless  of  whether  they  had  been  raised,  lowered  or  discon- 
tinued subsequent  to  that  time,  and  under  this  provision  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  Wisconsin  Central  Railway  Co.  to  file  the  rates  then  in  force  affect- 
ing the  Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  shipments.  If  any  new  rates  or  any 
changes  in  the  rates  in  force  on  April  1  were  made  between  that  time  and 
the  date  of  the  passage  and  publication  of  the  law,  such  new  rates  or 
changes  should  also  be  filed  with  the  Commission.  Menasha  Wooden  Ware 
Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  108,  112. 

Power  of  state  to  regulate  rates. 

3.  If  the  maximum  rates  are  too  high  in  the  judgment  of  the  legisla- 
ture, it  may  lower  them,  provided  it  does  not  make  them  unreasonably 
low  as  that  term  is  understood  in  the  law;  but  it  cannot  enact  a  law  making 
maximum  rates,  and  then  proceed  to  make  exceptions  to  it  in  favor  of 
such  persons  or  classes  as  in  the  legislative  judgment  or  caprice  may 
seem  proper.  (Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  R.  Co.,  1898,  173  U.  S. 
684.)    Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  330,  333-334. 

4.  A  railway  company  cannot  be  required  to  accept  a  less  rate  than 
the  maximum  rate  prescribed  by  statute,  unless  it  voluntarily  publishes  a 
lower  rate.    Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  330,  333. 

Questions  pertaining  to  rates  must  be  treated  broadly  and  prac- 
tically. 

5.  The  fact  that  advances  in  rates  which  were  complained  of  in  a 
particular  case  were  general  within  the  state  should  not  be  permitted  to 


Rates-Railroad. — Branch  line  rates 271 

prevent  the  lowering  of  the  particular  rates  complained  of,  if  such  action 
is  warranted  on  such  other  grounds  as  would  otherwise  be  accepted  as 
good  reasons  for  the  reductions.  To  refuse  a  reduction  of  rates  at  some  one 
point  even  though  it  may  tend  to  disturb  the  situation  at  other  points 
where  industries  of  the  same  kind  are  located,  would  simply  mean  that  no 
change  in  rates,  no  matter  how  necessary,  could  be  made  except  upon 
investigations  comprehensive  enough  to  cover  all  rates  directly  or  indirectly 
affected  by  such  changes.  If  this  view  were  consistently  taken  in  cases  of 
this  kind,  regulation  might  be  found  to  be  so  inelastic  as  to  subserve  no 
practical  purpose,  and  so  out  of  line  with  public  policy  as  to  be  directly 
harmful.  Wis.  Box  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1903,  3  R.  G. 
605,  619. 

Rates  to  be  reasonable  and  just. 

6.  Common  carriers  are  ordinarily  entitled  to  rates  that  are  high 
enough  to  cover  operating  expenses,  including  reasonable  returns  upon  a 
fair  value  of  the  property  used  and  useful  in  the  services  they  render. 
Parfreij  v.  C.  M.  &  Si.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  551,  553;  Wis.  Pulp 
<^  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  436,  455. 

7.  No  rates  should  be  so  low  that  they  do  not  cover  their  fair  share  of 
operating  expenses,  including  something  in  the  way  of  net  earnings.  Wis. 
Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  436,  455. 

II.  ADVANGE  IN  RATES. 

Effect  of  advance  on  commercial  conditions. 

8.  Advances  in  freight  rates,  when  not  justified  by  the  cost  of  transpor- 
tation or  by  commercial  conditions,  are  apt  to  have  serious  effects  upon  the 
business  world.  This  is  particularly  true  when  they  affect  low  grade  and 
hea\'y  raw  materials.  They  should,  therefore,  not  be  resorted  to  unless 
it  is  reasonably  certain  that  the  situation  is  such  as  to  warrant  the  change. 
Wis.  Box  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  605,  618. 

Methods  of  advance. 

9.  Freight  rates,  for  the  most  part,  rest  upon  other  than  competitive 
forces  and  can  therefore,  within  certain  broad  limits,  be  advanced  by  ar- 
bitrary methods.  Wis.  Box  Co.  et  al.  p.  C.  M.  <fc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909, 
3  R.  G.  605,  618. 

Notice  of  advance. 

10.  As  a  rule  freight  charges  should  not  be  advanced  except  when 
those  immediately  affected  have  been  properly  notified  of  the  change,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  prepared  for  it.     Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  ■ 
P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  1,  20. 

III.  BRANGH  LINE  RATES. 

Elimination  of  inequalities. 

11.  The  cost  per  unit  of  traffic  is  wtvy  much  greater  where  the  traffic 
is  light  than  where  it  is  heavy.    Rates  based  upon  cost  would  therefore  be 


272 Rates-Railroad. — Branch  line  rates 

higher  on  branch  lines  than  on  the  main  Hnes.  Ordinarily,  however,  it  is 
to  the  best  interest  of  all  concerned  that  such  inequalities  should  be  elim- 
inated and  that  the  rates  should  be  based  on  the  conditions  for  the  line 
as  a  whole.  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  aL.  1911,  7  R.  G.  598, 
605. 

IV.  CARLOAD  RATES. 
In  general. 

12.  Carload  traffic  is  relatively  much  less  costly  to  handle  than  less 
than  carload  trafTic.  For  this  there  are  many  reasons:  in  the  first  place  the 
carload  loading  is  relatively  heavy  and  this  fact  in  turn  materially  reduces 
the  proportion  of  dead  weight  to  the  pay  weight  that  must  be  transported; 
it  is  also  loaded  and  unloaded  by  the  shippers  and  involves  much  less  in 
the  way  of  station,  office  and  other  services.  National  Distilling  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  424,  428;  In  re  Rates  on  Agricul- 
tural Implements,  1913,  11  R.  C.  508,  531.' 

*'Jinimy"  cars. 

13.  By  reason  of  testimony  inadvertently  given  at  a  previous  hear- 
ing, the  order  of  the  Commission,  dated  July  31,  1907,  1  R.  C.  831, 
prescribed  rates  for  the  transportation  of  "jimmy"  cars;  which  testi- 
mony subsequently  given  proved  to  be  too  high;  and  therefore  the  respond- 
ent is  ordered  to  charge  for  the  transportation  of  "jimmy"  cars,  loaded, 
a  rate  of  $1.75  for  distances  of  eight  miles  or  less  and  $2.25  for  distances 
over  eight  miles.    Streveler  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  64,  66. 

Mixed  carload  rates. 

14.  Carload  mixture  rules  tend  to  increase  the  proportion  of  the  car- 
load traffic  as  well  as  the  loading  per  car.  They  alsd  operate  as  offsets  to 
high  minimum  weight  requirements  and  the  great  differences  between 
carload  and  less  than  carload  rates.  In  re  Rates  on  Agricultural  Imple- 
ments, 1913,  11  R.  C.  508,  533. 

V.  CLASS  RATES. 
Nature  of. 

15.  Class  rates  are  usually  the  highest  rates  in  effect.  They  are  so 
high,  in  fact,  that  the  heavier  and  cheaper  commodities  can  seldom  be 
moved  thereon,  and  this  is  very  largely  the  reason  why  commodity  rates 
have  been  put  into  effect.  Fergoi  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
248,  254. 

VL  COMMODITY  RATES. 
In  generalr 

16.  The  effect  of  special  and  local  conditions  at  various  points  enters 
more  or  less  strongly  in  the  fixing  of  commodity  rates.  Ringle  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  598,  600-601. 

17.  The  carriers  may  make  commodity  rates  for  the  shipment  of  the 
building  material  and  machinery  in  question  and  ship  the  same  thereunder. 
A  lower  rate  may  legally  be  made  to  the  manufacturer  of  such  commod- 


Rates-Railroad. — Commutation  rates 273 

ities  than  to  a  dealer  therein,  the  conditions  and  circumstances  under 
which  the  two  Icinds  of  shipments  are  made  being  dissimilar.  In  re  Rates 
on  Construction  Material  for  Mfg.  Plants,  1906,  1  R.  C.  210,  222. 

18.  Where  a  given  rate  under  consideration  is  not  complained  of  as 
unreasonable,  there  can  be  no  justification  for  advancing  some  other  rate 
merely  to  establish  a  difference  in  the  two  rates  on  the  basis  of  the  differ- 
ing values  of  the  commodities  carried.  Greengo  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  532,  533. 

Adjustment  to  conditions. 

19.  There  is  no  contradiction  in  fixing  rates  which  are  considered  to 
be  reasonable  as  distance  rates,  and  yet  leaving  lower  commodity  rates  in 
effect  for  points  at  which  special  conditions  may  make  such  rates  reason- 
able.   Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  ef  al,  1911,  7  R.  G.  598,  600. 

High  grade  commodities. 

,20.  Articles  of  high  value  should  be  charged  relatively  higher  rates 
than  articles  of  low  value.  Wis.  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  v.C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  436,  455. 

Loiv  grade  commodities. 

21.  It  is  better  for  both  carriers  and  shippers  that  low  grade  freight 
should  be  carried  at  rates  which  will  contribute  but  little  in  the  way  of 
return  upon  the  investment,  than  that  the  traffic  should  be  lost  altogether. 
Waukesha  Lime  and  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C. 
87,  96;  Schwoegler  &  Kelly  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  287,  289; 
Wis.  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  u.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  436, 
455-456;  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  365,  390. 

Reason  for  putting  into  effect. 

22.  Class  rates  are  so  high,  in  fact,  that  the  heavier  and  cheaper 
commodities  can  seldom  be  moved  thereon,  and  this  is  very  largely  the 
reason  why  commodity  rates  have  been  put  into  effect.  Fergot  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  248,  254. 

Specific  commodity  rates. 

23.  Specific  commodity  rates,  as  a  rule,  are  based  on  or  made  to 
meet  special  traffic  conditions  which  are  not  met  by  general  distance  class 
or  commodity  rates.  These  rates  are  lower,  in  practically  all  cases,  than 
general  distance  tariff  rates.  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at., 
1911,  7  R.  G.  170,  175. 

VII.  GOMMUTATION  RATES. 

Granting  of  commutation  fates. 

24.  Obviously  there  must  be  some  reasonable  basis  upon  which  the 
granting  of  commutation  rates  must  be  determined,  or  otherwise  the 
general  traveling  public  would  be  burdened  with  a  part  of  the  cost  of 
carrying  the  favored  classes  or  individuals.  Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  &  St. 
P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  330,  335. 


274 Rates-Railroad. — Commutation  rates 

Must  be  offered  impartially.  * 

25.  If  a  company  voluntarily  establishes  a  commutation  rate  between 
any  points  on  its  road,  it  must  be  accorded  under  the  same  circumstances 
and  upon  the  same  conditions  to  all  alike  who  may  desire  to  avail  them- 
selves of  it.     Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  330,  334. 

VIII.  CONCENTRATION  RATES. 
In  general. 

26.  The  concentration  system  was  instituted  in  Wisconsin  about 
fifteen  years  ago.  Its  general  introduction,  however,  appears  to  be  of 
much  more  recent  origin.  The  exact  circumstances  under  which  the 
system  arose  were  not  developed  during  the  hearings,  nor  have  we  been 
able  to  secure  definite  information  from  other  sources.  As  the  term 
"concentration"  suggests,  the  system  involves  the  collecting  or  gathering 
of  cheese  at  some  point  or  points  centrally  located  with  reference  to  the 
cheese  producing  and  marketing  areas.  At  such  central  or  concentration 
points  large  quantities  of  cheese  are  stored  in  warehouses  to  be  sold  and 
shipped  at  the  proper  turn  of  the  market.  So.  Wis.  CheesemerCs  Protective 
Assn.  V.  Ry.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  143,  146;  Kraft  &  Bros.  Co.  et  at.  v.  M.  P. 
&  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  217,  219. . 

27.  There  is  no  inconsistency  in  the  establishment  by  the  carrier  of 
a  different  and  lower  basis  of  rates  where  the  product  is  to  be  reshipped 
over  the  same  line  than  where  no  further  movement  is  intended.  Mari- 
nette-Green Bay  Mfg.  Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  133,  135. 

28.  It  is  not  to  be  understood  that  every  carrier  should  be  required 
to  permit  concentration  shipments  to  leave  its  line  and  trust  to  the  in- 
tegrity and  solvency  of  a  more  or  less  distant  or  unknown  shipper  on  a 
foreign  railroad  line  for  the  return  of  the  commodity  on  the  out-movement. 
Borden  Co.  v.  L.  C.  &  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  439,  443,  444. 

Conditions  under  which  granted. 

29.  The  concentration  rate  is  not  an  independent  rate  of  itself.  It 
does  not  appear  to  be  often  granted,  except  when  the  concentration  rate 
to  the  concentrating  point,  plus  the  rate  from  the  concentrating  point  to 
the  market  is  sufficiently  high  to  constitute  adequate  returns  for  all  the 
services  of  the  transportation  that  are  covered  by  these  rates.  Cochrane 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  1,  4;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  32,  35-36;  Wis.  Box  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  3.  R.  C.  605,  611;  Fergot  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1909,  4  R.  C.  248,  253;  Arpin  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  C.  441,  446. 

Distinguished  from  local  rates. 

30.  It  does  not  seem  that  a  concentration  rate  is  a  local  rate,  nor 
that  it  can  fairly  be  made  the  basis  for  any  other  than  concentration 
rates.  One  of  the  attributes  of  a  local  rate  is,  that  it  is  independent  of 
itself;  that  it  normally  constitutes  a  reasonable  compensation  for  the 
services  covered  by  it;  and  that  it  has  no  connection  with  any  other 
rate  or  service.  Concentration  rates  do  not  meet  any  of  these,  require- 
ments.    Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  1,  30. 


Rates-Railroad. — Concentration  rates  275 


Establishment  of  concentration  rates. 

31.  Concentration  rates  on  butter  established:  Cochrane  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  1;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  \V. 
R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  32;  Wing  &  Geits  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  625. 

32.  Goncentration  rales  on  eggs  established:  Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M. 
<Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  1;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1908,  3  R.  G.  32:  Stolte,  Dangel  Sc  Foss  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.' Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  G.  335;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  338; 
Wing  &  Getts  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  625. 

33.  Goncentration  rates  on  cheese  estabhshed:  So.  Wis.  Cheesemen's 
Protective  Assn.  v.  Rij.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  143. 

34.  Goncentration  rates  on  cucumbers  and  onions  estabhshed: 
Alart  &  McQuire  v.  G.  B.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  340. 

35.  Goncentration  rates  on  logs  established:  Arpin  Hardwood  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sz  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  441. 

36.  Goncentration  rates  on  box  lumber  established:  Wisconsin  Box 
Co.  et  at.  V.  C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  605. 

37.  Goncentration  rates  on  poles  and  posts  established:  Torrey 
Cedar  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  461. 

38.  Goncentration  rates  on  tobacco  established:  Borden  Co.  v. 
L.  C.  &  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  439. 

Legality  of. 

39.  Goncentration  rates  or  transit  privileges,  such  as  those  in  question 
here,  are  also  provided  for  by  and  come  within  the  laws.  The  legislature, 
in  enacting  these  laws,  evidently  recognized  the  fact  that  the  rate  schedules 
for  this  state  were  adjusted  upon  a  basis  that  made  concentration  rates, 
on  many  of  the  leading  commodities,  absolutely  necessary,  and  that  such 
rates  can  not  be  equitably  or  justly  withdrawn  without  being  accompanied 
by  far  reaching  rearrangements  of  the  present  rate  schedules.  Cochrane  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  1,  4;  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic 
Assn.  V.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  365,  387. 

Nature  of. 

40.  A  concentration  rate  is  not  an  independent  rate.  It  is  a  sort  of  a 
transit  rate  that  is  only  granted  on  certain  commodities  in  order  that  they 
may  be  stopped  in  transit  for  the  purpose  of  sorting,  packing,  cleaning, 
re-manufacture,  etc.,  and  when  the  products  thus  obtained  from  the 
original  commodities  are  shipped  to  the  markets  over  the  same  line  of 
road.  Anwrican  Cigar  Co.  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  807, 
814;  Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  1,  3-4;  Webb 
Produce  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  32,  35;  Fergot  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  248,  253. 

Necessity  for  frequent  adjustment. 

41.  When  rate  arrangements  of  this  kind  are  so  adjusted  as  not  to 
result  in  unjust  discriminations  to  the  public,  they  are  perhaps  not  open 
to  serious  objections  on  the  ground  of  pubhc  policy.  It  is  conceivable, 
h^iwever,  that  under  this  basis  of  rate  making,  conditions  might  be  fre- 


276 Rates-Railroad. — Concentration  rates 

quently  met  with  under  which  an  absolutely  equitable  treatment  of  all 
shippers  would  require  frequent  changes  and  readjustments  of  the  rates 
on  both  the  raw  material  and  the  products  obtained  therefrom.  Arpin 
Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  441,  446. 

IX.  DEMURRAGE  CHARGES. 

Allowance  for  delays. 

42.  The  demurrage  rules  make  no  exception  for  cases  of  delay 
caused  by  floods.  Both  petitioner  and  respondent  are  bound  by  these 
rules  until  challenged  and  found  by  the  Commission  to  be  unreasonable. 
Paine  Lbr.  Co.  Ltd.  v.  C.  &  N.  \V.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  633,  634. 

43.  It  would  seem  advisable  for  the  railway  companies  to  amend 
the  demurrage  rules  to  make  allowance  for  delays  in  unloading  cars  which 
are  occasioned,  as  in  the  instant  case,  by  the  failure  of  the  railway  company 
to  provide  promised  track  facilities  within  the  time  agreed  upon  with 
shippers.  Greiling  Bros.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
449,452. 

44.  It  is  recommended  that  all  lines  in  Wisconsin  who  are  members 
of  the  Wisconsin  Demurrage  Bureau  put  into  effect  a  rule  through  which, 
under  the  conditions  stated,  additional  free  time  allowance  will  be  made 
for  delay  due  to  infrequent  mail  service  or  prohibitive  conditions  brought 
about  by  the  weather,  Albright  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  6c  0.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  763. 

Free  storage  period. 

45.  It  is  recommended  that  all  companies  operating  railroads  in 
Wisconsin  who  are  members  of  the  Wisconsin  Demurrage  Bureau,  im- 
mediately publish  and  put  into  effect  a  reasonable  rule  to  allow  additional 
free  storage  to  patrons  in  proportion  to  the  distance  over  which  they  are 
obliged  to  haul  freight  from  railway  stations.  Buckman  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  405. 

X.  DISTANCE  BASIS  FOR  FARES. 

Fares  to  be  based  on  distance. 

46.  The  present  practice  of  the  W.  C.  R.  Co.  of  charging  passengers 
who  are  destined  to  Quarry  the  full  passenger  rate  to  the  first  station 
beyond  is  unreasonable  and  unjust.  It  is  also  unreasonable  and  unjust 
to  charge  passengers  who  board  a  train  at  Quarry  the  full  rate  from  the 
first  station  beyond  Quarry  in  the  direction  opposite  from  that  in  which 
the  passenger  is  traveling.  Passengers  destined  to  or  coming  from 
Quarry  should  be  required  to  pay  fares  from  or  to  Quarry,  neither  more 
nor  less,  and  not  from  or  to  Coffins  and  Valders.  Krucger  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co., 
1906.  1  R.  C.  285,  290,  291. 

XI.     DISTANCE  RATES. 

Unloading  points  within  a  city. 

47.  It  would  seem  fair  to  designate  the  station  of  Milwaukee,  as 
named  in  the  distance  tables  of  the  respondent  companies,  as  the  point 


Rates-Railroad. — Free  or  reduced  rate  service  277 

to  which  all  rates  for  hauls  terminating  within  the  city  limits  of  Milwaukee 
should  be  computed  and  it  is  ordered  that  in  the  application  of  the  tariff 
upon  shipments  to  points  within  the  limits  of  the  city  of  Milwaukee,  the 
rates  be  governed  by  the  distances  from  the  points  of  origin  to  the  station 
of  Milwaukee  as  named  in  the  respondents'  tables  of  distances.  Wauke- 
sha Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  ef  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  347,  352. 

XII.     EMERGENCY  RATES. 

Power  of  Commission  to  establish. 

48.  Under  sec.  1797-28  of  the  Statutes-the  Commission  is  empowered 
to  authorize  the  estabhshment  of  emergency  rates  that  are  reasonable 
under  the  circumstances.  Elmore-Benjamin  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  396,  399. 

XIII.     FILII^iG  OF  RATES. 

Duty  of  shipper  to  ascertain  that  rate  is  filed  before  making  ship- 
ment. 

49.  It  is  the  duty  of  shipper  to  ascertain  that  the  rate  is  filed.  Menasha 
Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  589,  ^91;  Beaver  Dam  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  700,  701. 

XIV.     FREE  SERVICE. 

When  unlawful. 

50.  There  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  present  practice 
of  carr>'ing  passengers  free  of  charge  is  unlawful,  and  that  the  respondent 
should  be  required  by  law  to  charge  reasonable  rates  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  passengers,  which  rates  must  be  published  and  filed  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  sec.  1797-^1  of  the  Statutes.  Streveler  u.  Marathon 
County  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  831,  840. 

XV.     FREE  OR  REDUCED  RATE  SERVICE. 

When  permissible. 

51.  The  railway  companies  might,  if  they  saw  fit,  contribute  to  the 
association  in  question  a  sum  equal  to  the  usual  charge  for  the  haulage  of 
an  advertising  car,  and  this  being  so,  there  is  nothing  in  the  law  to  prevent 
the  railway  compani^  from  making  a  contribution,  by  way  of  service,  to 
the  objects  and  purposes  of  the  association,  they  being  directly  interested 
in  and  benefited  by  the  colonization  of  northern  Wisconsin,  and  having 
the  right  to  contribute  money  or  its  equivalent  for  advertising  purposes. 
Under  the  provisions  of  sec.  1,  ch.  13,  laws  passed  at  the  1905  special  ses- 
sion of  the  legislature,  the  occupants  of  such  a  car  would  be  obliged  to  pay 
the  regular  rate  of  fare  when  traveling  between  points  within  Wisconsin. 
In  re  North  Wisconsin  Farmers  Assn.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  175. 


278  Rates-Railroad. — Group  or  blanket  rates 


XVI.     GROUP  OR  BLANKET  RATES. 

In  general. 

52.  The  group  system  is  more  applicable  to  long  than  to  short  dis- 
tance traffic.  It  is  also  of  greater  importance  to  manufacturing  than  to 
agricultural  industries.  The  former  are  usually  located  in  certain  well 
defined  centers,  which  may  be  readily  classified  by  groups.  The  latter,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  more  evenly  distributed  over  the  entire  state  and  it  is 
difficult  in  many  cases  to  find  any  natural  basis  for  such  grouping.  There 
are  also  many  other  differences  between  these  two  classes  of  industries 
which  affect  the  situation  in  this  respect.  In  re  Rates  on  Live  Stocky  1907, 
1  R.  C.  778,  813. 

53.  Rates  that  are  strictly  based  on  the  cost  of  the  transportation 
will  vary  with  the  length  of  the  haul,  though  not  in  the  same  ratio.  Owing 
to  commercial  and  other  conditions,  this  fact  is  often  disregarded  in  rate 
making.  This  is  the  case  when  several  stations  in  the  same  territory  are 
placed  in  the  same  group,  and  when  some  fixed  commodity  or  traffic  from 
this  group  is  given  the  same  rate  to  any  given  market  or  markets.  This 
method  of  adjusting  the  rates,  while  not  scientific,  is  sometimes  justifiable, 
especially  when  dealing  with  established  conditions.  Konrad  Schreier  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5.  R.  C.  668,  672. 

54.  In  cases  such  as  the  one  under  consideration  where  it  would  se- 
riously disturb  established  conditions  and  injure  productive  capital,  it  is 
quite  likely  that  the  best  interests  of  the  greatest  number  are  subserved 
by  permitting  existing  group  rate  systems  to  remain  in  effect  and  by  seeing 
to  it  that  each  producer  secures  such  advantages  in  rates  in  his  immediate 
neighborhood  as  those  to  which,  because  of  his  location,  he  is  clearly  and 
equitably  entitled  under  this  system  of  rate  making.  Waukesha  Lime  & 
Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  419,  422. 

55.  In  a  case  involving  Wisconsin  points,  Waukesha  Lime  <Sc  Stone 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  26  I.  G.  G.  R.  515,  518-519,  the  inter- 
state commerce  commission  held  that  where  the  rate  complained  of  was 
not  in  itself  unreasonable  or  exorbitant  the  Commission  would  not  dis- 
turb a  group  rate  system  merely  because  as  high  a  rate  was  charged  for  a 
short  haul  as  for  a  longer  haul.  Central  Wis.  Traffic  Bur.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1914, 15  R.  G.  521,  523. 

Extent  of  rate  zones. 

56.  While  exact  distances  can  not  be  regarded  in  the  formation  of 
groups,  an  unusual  departure  from  distance  relations  existing  between 
different  localities  in  different  groups  must  be  predicated  upon  unusual 
or  extraordinary  circumstances.  G.  W.  Jones  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  520,  529. 

57.  From  the  point  of  view  of  scientific  rates  it  is  not  easy  to  justify 
rate  zones  that  are  as  wide,  or  nearly  so,  as  the  distance  between  the  zones. 
From  a  commercial  point  of  view,  on  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  con- 
ditions under  which  such  rate  groupings  may  be  warranted.  Wis.  Pulp  Sc. 
Paper  Mfrs.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  436,  453. 


Rates-Railroad. —  Joint  or  through  rates  279 

58.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  grouping  of  stations  for  constructing 
rates  may,  by  including  too  many  points,  make  the  steps  by  which  the 
rates  change  so  large  as  to  afTect  the  competitive  relation  of  producers  in 
adjacent  communities.  Connor  Lbr.Sc  Land  Co.  v.  LaonaSz  N.  W.R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  761,  766. 

Nature  of. 

59.  The  group  system  of  rate  making  is  convenient  in  the  making  up 
of  the  tarifTs.  In  many  instances,  at  least,  it  also  enables  rate  makers  to 
equalize  certain  local  inequalities  by  placing  producers  on  the  same  rate 
basis  regardless  of  certain  differences  in  the  distance.  In  principle,  the 
group  system  of  rate  making  differs  but  little  from  the  ordinary  distance 
system.  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  647,  651. 

60.  Group  rates  are  sometimes  established  between  one  shipping 
point  and  several  consuming  points,  and  at  other  times,  again,  between 
one  consuming  point  and  several  shipping  points.  The  amount  of  terri- 
tory that  is  included  in  each  group  varies  with  the  conditions.  Theo- 
retically each  group  should  include  only  places  with  common  interests 
located  not  too  far  apart.  The  group  system  of  rate  maldng  also  seems  to 
be  better  adapted  for  application  between  groups  located  a  considerable 
distance  apart  than  between  groups  located  close  to  each  other.  Wis. 
Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  452-453. 

61.  In  the  case  of  specific  commodities  the  rates  are  generally  fixed 
by  groups  rather  than  in  direct  relation  to  the  distances  covered,  and  the 
rate  to  or.  from  the  connecting  line  point  is  often  the  same  as  that  to  or 
from  the  junction  point,  or  else  exceeds  the  junction  point  rate  by  no 
more  than  the  transfer  cost  or  about  a  cent  per  cwt.  Streveler  et  al.  v. 
Marathon  Co.  Ry.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  409,  417-418. 

XVII.     HOMESEEKERS'  RATES. 
Legality  of. 

62.  The  interpretation  placed  upon  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law 
by  the  supreme  court  is  for  all  practical  purposes  as  much  a  part  of  the 
law  as  the  statute  itself.  Applying  that  interpretation  to  our  law,  it  would 
seem  that  where  railways  had  been  selling  land  seekers'  tickets  heretofore 
at  reduced  rates,  they  are  not  in  any  way  prohibited  from  seUing  such 
tickets  at  reduced  rates  at  the  present  time  under  the  provisions  of  our 
law.     In  re  Construction  Ch.  362,  Laws  1905,  1905,  1  R.  G.  1,  14. 

XVIII.     JOINT  OR  THROUGH  RATES. 

In  generaL 

63.  It  has  been  decided  many  times  by  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  and  the  courts  that  the  sum  of  two  reasonable  locals  does 
not  necessarily  make  a  reasonable  joint  rate.  For  the  purpose  of  deter- 
mining the  reasonableness  of  a  joint  rate  recourse  is  usually  had  to  what 
the  charge  would  be  if  the  entire  service  were  performed  by  one  line  of 
road.    This  may  not  be  the  correct  way  to  get"  at  it,  but  it  is  the  usual 


280 '  Rates-Railroad. — Joint  or  through  rates 

method  adopted  by  the  railroads  themselves.  Plumb  &  Nelson  Co.  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  19,  23,  24;  Manitowoc  Malting  Co.  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  69,  90;  Minch  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  599,  605. 

64.  Between  any  given  points  on  two  or  more  separate  lines  of  rail- 
road, joint  rates  are  usually  somewhat  lower  than  the  sum  of  the  local 
rates.  The  main  reason  for  this  probably  is,  that  in  the  case  of  joint  ship- 
ments the  terminal  expenses  are  less  than  would  be  the  case  for  local  ship- 
ments. Parfreij  p.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  551,  552; 
Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  \;  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  170,  182-183;  Gablowskij  et  al.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  544,  549:  Konopatzke  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  556,  563;  Semrad  Bros.  &  Pusch  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  76,  79;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P. 
&  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  127,  131-132:  Pulp  cfc  Paper  Mfrs. 
Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  735,  737. 

65.  It  hardly  seems  reasonable  to  base  joint  rates  on  any  other  than 
the  shortest  available  route.  This  position  is  supported  by  experience, 
for  where  more  than  one  route  is  open  the  instances  where  the  rates  are 
based  on  the  longest  would  seem  to  be  the  exceptions  rather  than  the 
rule.  To  base  the  rates  on  the  shorter  distance  is  also  in  line  \^ith  common 
fairness  and  public  interest.  Any  other  course  would,  in  most  cases, 
almost  seem  absurd.  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <fc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  647,  652,  660. 

66.  No  joint  rate  can  be  put  into  effect  without  the  consent  of  the 
Commission  and  certainly  under  the  circumstances  the  Commission 
would  not  authorize  a  joint  rate  over  a  circuitous  route  where  there  is  in 
effect  a  joint  rate  over  a  direct  route,  when  the  former  rate  would  have 
the  tendency  of  destroying  the  group  rates  over  the  direct  route.  Connor 
Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  697,  698. 

67.  Discriminatory  conditions  are  not  the  only  ones  justifying  the 
establishment  of  joint  rates  in  a  given  case.  Where  the  other  circum- 
stances, chief  among  which  is  the  cost  of  the  service  to  the  carrier,  make 
the  assessment  of  the  sum  of  the  local  rates  unreasonable,  joint  rates  may 
properly  be  established  without  reference  to  the  existence  or  absence  of 
direct  competition  between  shippers.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P. 
&  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  127,  131. 

Between  carriers  where  there  is  no  mechanical  union  of  tracks. 

68.  In  the  case  of  carriers  which  are  engaged  almost  exclusively  in 
transporting  passengers  and  situated  as  the  respondents  are  at  Neenah, 
physical  connection  of  tracks  is  not  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the 
formation  of  business  connections.  The  objection  interposed  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Commission  is  overruled  and  the  petition  will  be  heard 
upon  its  merits.  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910, 
4.  R  C.  471,  476. 

Cancellation  of  joint  trainload  rates. 

69.  Railroad  ordered  to  discontinue  and  cancel  its  joint  trainload  rate 
on  pulp  wood  shipments  from  Butternut,  Fifield,  and  Park  Falls  to  Kim- 


' Rates-Railroad. — Joint  or  through  rates 281 

berly,  Wis.     Rhinelandcr  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
8  R.  C.  105.  ' 

Division  of. 

70.  Joint  rates  and  the  division  of  the  same  between  the  connecting 
railroads  are  primarily  a  matter  of  voluntary  agreement  between  the  rail- 
roads interested,  but  the  Commission  may  apportion  joint  rates  when 
the  connecting  railways  cannot  agree  upon  a  division  of  such  rates.  The 
only  grounds  upon  which  the  Commission  may  supervise  contracts  affect- 
ing a  division  of  joint  rates  is  when  an  excessive  division  operates  as  a 
rebate  to  a  shipper  by  reason  of  his  ownership  of  the  railroad  receiving 
such  exorbitant  share  of  the  joint  rate.  In  re  Appl.  W.-G.  B.  R.  Co.,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  291. 

71.  Division  of  joint  rates  was  ordered  in:  Bowar  et  al.  v.  C.  <Sc  S.  C.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  693;  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1913,  12  R.  C.  170. 

Elements  of  cost. 

72.  In  cases  of  joint  rates  the  cost  of  transportation  is,  of  course, 
increased  by  additional  terminal  expenses,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  traffic 
must  be  transferred  from  one  line  to  another.  Another  element  that  enters 
into  the  cost  is  the  empty  car  mileage.  Mineral  PI.  Zinc  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N. 
W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  583,  595-596;  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon 
Co.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  409,  417. 

Establishment  of  on — Commodities  in  general. 

73.  Joint  rates  established  on  commodities  in  general.  Paxton  Sc 
Lightbodij  Co.  v.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  531;  Bowar  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  S. 
C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  693;  Konopatzke  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1912,  8  R.  C.  556. ' 


Bolts. 

74.  Joint  rates  established  on  bolts.  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon 
County  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  409. 

Brick  and  tile. 

75.  Joint  rates  established  on  brick  and  tile.  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  170;  598';  Wis.  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.  C.  M. 
Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  756.  ' 

Barley. 

76.  Joint  rates  established  on  barley.  Manitowoc  Malting  Co.  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.  1906,  1  R.  C.  69;  Konrad  Schreier  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910.  5  R.  C.  668. 

Beer. 

77.  Joint  rates  established  on  beer.  Semrad  Bros.  Sc  Pusch  Brwg.  Co. 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  9  R.  C.  76;  1913,  12  R.  C.  236. 

Cement. 

78.  Joint  rates  established  on  cement.  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon 
County  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  409. 


282 Rates-Railroad. — Joint  or  through  rates 

Establishment  of  on — Cheese  boxes. 

79.  Joint  rates  established  on  empty  cheese  boxes.  Parfreij  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.  etat.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  450;  5  R.  G.  551. 

Grain. 

80.  Joint  rates  estabhshed  on  grain.  Minch  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1907,  1  R.  G.  599;  Chamber  of  Comm.  of  Milw.  v.  C.  B.  <Sc  Q.  R.  Co.  et  at., 
1909,  4  R.  G.  80;  Streveter  et  at.  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  409. 

Hay. 

81.  Joint  rates  estabhshed  on  hay.  Streveter  et  at.  v.  Marathon  County 
R.  Co.  et  at.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409. 

Lime. 

82.  Joint  rates  estabhshed  on  hme.  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  419. 

Limestone. 

83.  Joint  rates  estabhshed  on  hmestone.  Waulcesha  Lime  Sc  Stone 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  6c  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  471. 

Live  stock. 


84.  Joint  rates  estabhshed  on  hve  stock.  In  re  Rates  on  Live  Stock, 
1907,  1  R.  G.  778;  Streveter  et  at.  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1912,  10 
R.  G.  409. 

Logs. 

85.  Joint  rates  estabhshed  on  logs.  Gabtowsky  et  at.  v.  C.  &  N.  \V.  R. 
Co.  et  at.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  544;  Streveter  et  at.  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et  at., 
1912,  10  R.  G.  409;  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914, 

14  R.  G.  703;  John  Week  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914, 

15  R.  G.  53. 

Lumber, 

86.  Joint  rates  established  on  lumber.  Shawano  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  775;  Wis.  Retait  Lbr.  Dealers"  Assn.  v.  C.  <Sc  N. 
W.  R.Co.  et  at.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  471,  589;  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  647,  655;  Heddles  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C. 
M.  &  St.  P.  R.Co.  et  at.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  714;  Mears-Stayton  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
W.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  247;  Streveter  et  at.  v.  Marathon  County 
R.  Co.  et  at.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409. 

* 

Peas  and  beans. 

87.  Joint  rates  established  on  peas  and  beans.  John  H.  Atten  Seed 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  641. 

Potatoes. 

88.  Joint  rates  established  on  potatoes.  Streveter  et  at.  v.  Marathon 
County  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409. 


Rates-Railroad. — Joint  or  through  rates  283 

Pulp. 

89.  Joint  rates  established  on  pulp.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  C. 
M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  etal.,1912,S  R.  C.  58;  Flambeau  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  699. 

Sand  and  gravel. 

90.  Joint  rates  established  on  sand  and  gravel.  Waupaca  Sand  & 
Gravel  Co.  v.  Waupaca  G.  B.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  482. 

Sash,  doors  and  blinds. 


91.  Joint  rates  established  on  sash,  doors  and  blinds.    Curtis  <Sc  Yale 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  41. 

Scrap  iron. 


92.  Joint  rates  established  on  scrap  iron.    Mayer  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R. 
Co.etal,  1911,  8  R.  C.  328. 


Stone. 


93.  Joint  rates  established  on  stone.  Schwoegler  Sc  Kelly  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  287. 

Tobacco. 

94.  Joint  rates  established  on  tobacco.  American  Cigar  Co.  v.  G. 
B.  Sz  W.  R.  Co.  el  al.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  807;  Borden  Co.  v.  L.  C.  &  S.  E.  R. 
Co.etal.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  439. 

Wood  (cord). 

95.  Joint  rates  established  on  cordwood.  Harrison  v.  D.  &  W.  R. 
Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  801. 

Wood  (pulp). 

96.  Joint  rates  established  on  pulp  wood.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  127;  Streveler  et  al.  v. 
Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  10  R.  C.  409;  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs. 
Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  365;  1914,  13  R.  G. 
735. 


Zinc  ore. 


97.  Joint  rates  established  on  zinc  ore.  Mineral  Pt.  Zinc  Co.  v. 
C.  iSc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  583. 

Legality  of. 

98.  Statutes  requiring  the  establishment  of  joint  rates  have  been 
enacted  in  several  states  and  have  generally  been  upheld  by  the  courts. 
Under  the  laws  of  this  state  such  rates  may  also  be  established  by  this 
Gommission.  Minch  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1907,  1  R.  G.  599,  605; 
City  oJNeenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  471,  473;  Konrad 
Schreier  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  5  R.  G.  668,  670;  Rhine- 
lander Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  9  R.  G.  127,  130. 


/ 


284  Rates-Railroad.- — Joint  or  through  rates 

Necessity  for. 

99.  The  refusal  to  grant  joint  rates  to  local  stations,  and  where  the 
traffic  is  comparatively  light,  as  well  as  on  raw  material  destined  to  points 
off  the  line,  or  where  little  or  no  traffic  can  be  had  from  the  commodities 
into  which  it  is  manufactured,  may  be  good  policy  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  traffic  department,  but  it  is  not  likely  to  always  subserve  the  best 
interests  of  the  public.  Such  refusals  often  result  in  discriminations  as 
between  both  localities  and  persons.  Minch  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  599,  605. 

On  raw  materials  manufactured  on  originating  line. 

100.  The  carriers  object  to  establishing  joint  rates  on  raw  material 
originating  on  their  own  lines  and  which  can  also  be  manufactured  into 
finished  products  at  points  on  their  own  lines,  in  cases  where  such  joint 
rates  may  tend  to  reduce  their  traffic.  With  this  position  it  is  difficult  to 
quarrel,  at  least  when  it  is  not  carried  to  a  point  where  the  pubhc  interests 
involved  are  greater  than  those  of  the  carrier.  For  handling  such  traffic, 
carriers  are  entitled  to  rates  that  will  yield  them  returns  that  are  fully 
adequate  as  compensation  for  their  services.  But  when  assured  of  such 
rates,  it  is  their  duty,  under  the  circumstances,  to  grant  joint  rates  and 
traffic  arrangements.  Mineral  Pt.  Zinc  Co.  v.  C.  <&  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1911,  7  R.  G.  583,  596. 

101.  The  natural  aversion  of  the  railway  companies  to  the  movement 
of  raw  materials  off  of  their  own  lines  must  sometimes  yield  to  the  right 
of  the  public  to  rates  which  are,  under  all  the  circumstances,  reasonable. 
Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
127,  130. 

When  granted. 

102.  Whether  joint  rates  should  be  granted  or  not,  is  often  a  matter 
of  the  greatest  importance  when  viewed  from  an  economic  point  of  view, 
and  for  this  reason  does  not  entirely  depend  upon  the  position  of  the  car- 
riers in  the  matter.  Whenever  economic  and  commercial  conditions  are 
such  as  to  require  such  rates,  and  whenever  the  granting  of  such  rates, 
on  the  whole,  is  not  at  variance  with  the  obligations  or  duties  of  the 
carriers,  they  should  be  put  into  effect.  Shawano  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  775,  779. 

XIX.  LOGAL  RATES. 

Attributes  of. 

103.  One  of  the  attributes  of  a  local  rate  is,  that  it  is  independent  of 
itself;  that  it  normally  constitutes  a  reasonable  compensation  for  the 
services  covered  by  it;  and  that  it  has  no  connection  with  any  other  rate 
or  service.     Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  AT.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  1,  30. 

XX.  LOWEST  RATE  APPLI GABLE. 

Duty  of  carrier  to  apply  lowest  rate. 

104.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  railway  company,  in  the  absence  of  any 
specific  direction  to  the  contrary,  to  route  shipments  over  lines  whereby 


Rates-Railroad. — Making  rates — elements  considered     285 

the  freight  charges  will  be  least.     Owen  &  Bros.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  43,  44. 

105.  The  lowest  rate  in  effect  should  have  been  used  in  computing 
the  charge.  Bacon  Sz  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C. 
62,  63. 

XXI.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

Ability  of  commodity  to  pay. 

106.  The  ability  of  the  commodity  to  pay  is  an  element  to  be  con- 
sidered. In  re  Rates  on  Waste  Lumber  Products,  1906,  1  R.  C.  291,  298; 
In  re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  G.  168,  221. 

Adequacy  of  service. 

107.  The  question  for  decision  is,  not  how  cheap  the  carriers  could 
conduct  the  passenger  business  and  still  make  a  profit,  but  how  cheaply 
can  this  business  be  done  in  an  adequate  way.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  324,  500. 

Average  rate  per  ton-mile. 

108.  The  average  rate  per  ton  per  mile  for  the  entire  system  can 
hardly  be  a  fair  basis  for  the  rates  on  sugar  beets.  This  rate  is  simply 
the  average  receipt  per  mile  for  each  ton  of  freight  transported.  It 
includes  all  kinds  of  freight  and  all  sorts  of  loading  for  all  distances. 
Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1906,  1  R.  G. 
258,  271. 

Commercial  conditions. 

109.  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  commercial  conditions  of  the 
character  described  are  not  important  and  that  they  cannot  or  should 
not  be  taken  into  consideration  in  making  rates.  Conditions  are  often 
met  with  when  they  play  so  important  a  part,  both  from  an  economic 
and  sociological  point  of  view,  as  to  warrant  all  sorts  of  changes  of  this 
character.     In  re  Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream,  1908,  2  R.  C.  450,  498. 

Comparative  data. 

110.  It  has  been  repeatedly  held  that,  in  passing  upon  rate  disputes, 
the  rates  in  effect  for  similar  services  on  other  lines  in  the  same  section 
of  the  country  are  an  element  to  which  considerable  weight  should  often 
be  accorded  in  the  adjustment  of  rates.  In  re  Rates  on  Cordwood,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  705,  707. 

111.  The  comparative  basis  alone  is  not  always  a  safe  basis  for 
rate  making,  for  while  rates  so  made  may  be  non-discriminatory  as  between 
shippers,  they  may  be  higher  than  sufficient  to  yield  reasonable  returns 
on  the  investment.  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  546,  549. 

112.  Comparisons  with  rates  elsewhere  in  effect  are  of  value,  not  as 
determining  what  the  rates  in  a  given  case  should  be,  but  as  an  indication 
of  the  conditions  which  surround  the  industry  as  a  whole.  It  need 
hardly  be  pointed  out  that  the  financial  and  commercial  situation  of 


286     Rates-Railroad. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

almost  every  industry  is  largely  affected  by  the  cost  of  transporting  its 
products.  Thus,  while  the  cost  of  service  is  the  element  of  most  vital 
importance,  a  comparison  of  existing  rates  with  the  rates  under  which 
similar  traffic  actually  moves  in  other  regions  is  also  of  some  value. 
Ringle  ei  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  598,  600. 

113.  The  Commission  will  not  undertake  to  determine  the  reasonable- 
ness of  rates  by  mere  comparison  with  other  existing  rates.  Locke  v. 
C.ScN.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  366,  367. 

114.  The  Commission  has  repeatedly  declared  that  the  comparative 
basis  alone  is  not  always  a  safe  one  for  rate  making.  Wausau  Advn. 
Assn.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  527,  530. 

/  Competitive  conditions. 

115.  We  have  regarded  chiefly,  although  not  exclusively,  the  risk 
assumed  by  the  carrier,  the  value  of  the  commodity,  the  volume  of  the 
traffic,  competitive  conditions,  and  the  cost  of  the  service.  So.  Wis. 
Cheesemen's  Protective  Assn.  v.  Ry.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  143,  156. 

116.  Commodities,  which  are  subject  to  competitive  conditions, 
cannot,  as  a  rule,  bear  such  rates  as  those  in  the  distance  tariffs.  Nor  are 
they  often,  in  the  long  run,  obliged  to  do  so.  For  when  the  roads  find 
that  the  traffic  will  not  move  under  them,  commodity  rates,  which  are 
more  closely  adjusted  to  prevailing  commercial  conditions,  are  generally 
put  into .  effect.  The  distance  tariffs  are  essentially  non-competitive 
tariffs,  and  the  rates  given  therein  can  not  often  be  used  for  competitive 
business.     Minch  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  599,  604. 

117.  Competition,  both  active  and  potential,  affects  the  rates. 
Nobte  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  767,  770;  Elbertson 
V.  e.  St.  p.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  593,  598. 

118.  While  there  is  no  direct  competition  in  this  case  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  relation  of  these  two  classes  of  producers  may  not  be 
affected  by  general  competitive  conditions.  If,  for  instance,  the  state  of 
the  markets  and  of  the  two  industries  are  such  that  the  profits  in  the 
lumber  is  relatively  greater  than  in  the  paper  industry,  it  follows  as  a 
matter  of  course  that  the  former  can  afford  to  pay  more  for  their  raw 
material  and  therefore  occupy  a  more  advantageous  position  in  the  market 
for  the  same.     In  re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168,  189. 

119.  Rates  that  have  been  in  effect  for  some  time  are  also  Hkely  to 
have  been  the  means  of  establishing  business  relations,  particularly  in 
strictly  competitive  industries,  that  will  be  seriously  interfered  with 
when  such  rates  are  increased.  Commercial  conditions  of  this  character 
are  frequently  among  the  elements  that  should  receive  consideration  in 
fixing  rates  of  transportation.  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  546,  547. 

120.  The  practice  of  charging  lower  rates  to  the  larger  terminals 
than  to  intermediate  points  on  the  same  line  is,  of  course,  quite  general 
and  is  justified  on  competitive  grounds.  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  663,  664. 

121.  The  most  important  element  in  the  fixing  of  rates  is  the  cost  of 
service,  subject  to  modification  by  reason  of  commercial  conditions, 
such  as  the  value  of  the  article  carried,  the  competitive  situation  of  both 


Rates-Railroad. — Making  rates — elements  considered     287 

the  producer  and  the  carrier,  etc.      Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  598,  600. 

122.  The  Commission  will  not  undertake  to  adjust  rates  in  order  to 
remove  competitive  disadvantages  due  to  location.  Locke  v.  C.  &  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  366,  367. 

123.  After  the  costs  have  been  given  due  weight,  one  other  matter 
enters  into  the  question  of  reasonableness  of  rates,  namely,  competitive 
conditions.  Not  infrequently  the  regular  rate  of  transportation  would 
entirely  prevent  commodities  from  moving  and  it  may  often  be  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  carriers  and  the  community  alike  that  these  conditions 
be  taken  into  account  in  the  final  rate  adjustment.  Wausau  Advancement 
Assn.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  527,  530. 

124.  Competitive  traffic  cannot  always  be  had  at  the  regular  rates. 
Such  traffic,  however,  should  not  be  neglected  for  this  reason.  Mason- 
Donaldson  Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  d:  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  575,  577. 

Cost  of  service. 

125.  The  most  important  single  factor  in  the  fixing  of  a  rate  of 
transportation  is  the  cost  of  service.  To  ascertain  this  cost  per  unit  of 
transportation  for  each  class  of  service  is  a  difficult  matter.  It  involves 
the  assets  and  liabilities  of  the  company,  its  earnings  and  operating 
expenses,  and  the  apportionment  of  the  same  between  the  dilTerent  classes 
of  traffic,  Buell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  324,  346;  So.  Wis. 
Cheesemen' s  Protective  Assn.  v.  Rij.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  143,  156;  In  re 
Rates  on  Waste  Lbr.  Products,  1906,  1  R.  C.  291,  298;  In  re  Rates  on  Live 
Stock,  1907,  1  R.  C.  778,  807;  In  re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168, 
227;  In  re  Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream,  1908,  2  R.  C.  450,  465;  Elbertson  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  <k  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  593,  598;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  32,  36;  Paxton  Sz  Lightbody  Co.  v.  M.  R. 
Co.  et  at.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  531,  542;  Wis.  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  C.  Sc  N. 
W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  6  R.  C.  436,  455-456;  Mineral  Pt.  Zinc  Co.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  7  R.  C.  583,  595-596;  Ringle  et  al  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  7  R.  C.  598,  600;  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic 
Assn.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  R.  C.  365,  377;  Waukesha 
Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  M.  SL  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  13  R.  C. 
471,  473;  Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  C.  527,  530;  In  re  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  Switching  Rates  in  Milwaukee, 
1914,  14  R.  C.  261,  270. 


Empty  car  mileage. 


126.  The  testimony  indicated  that  the  proportion  of  the  empty 
car  mileage  is  very  large  in  the  live  stock  traffic.  This  is  an  important 
feature.  It  causes  a  considerable  increase  in  the  cost  of  this  traffic,  and 
should  be  given  full  consideration  in  the  adjustment  of  the  rates.  In  re 
Rates  on  Live  Stock,  1907,  1  R.  C.  778,  798. 

127.  A  relatively  lower  amount  of  empty  car  mileage  means  lower 
cost  because  it  means  more  effective  use  of  the  equipment  or  property 
of  the  carrier.     In  re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168,  221. 


2SS     Rates-Railroad. — Making  rates— elements  considered 

Cost  of  service — Interest.  • 

128.  In  addition  to  general  expenses,  maintenance  expenses,  etc., 
certain  other  outlays,  such  as  taxes  and  a  fair  income  upon  the  invest- 
ment, must  also  be  taken  into  account.  In  re  Passenger  Rates  M.  St.  P. 
Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  540,  581. 

Maintenance. 

129.  In  a  general  way  it  perhaps  can  be  said  that  the  operating 
expenses  should  include  the  cost  of  operation,  general  expenses,  and  of 
maintaining  the  property  in  such  condition  that  its  operating  efficiency 
at  the  end  is  at  least  as  great  as  it  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  year. 
Anything  less  than  this  can  hardly  be  considered  sufficient.  In  re  Pas- 
senger Rates  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  540,  550.  • 

Taxes. 

130.  In  addition  to  general  expenses,  maintenance  expenses,  etc., 
certain  other  outlays,  such  as  taxes  and  a  fair  income  upon  the  investment, 
must  also  be  taken  into  account.  In  re  Passenger  Rates  M.  St.  P.  <Sc 
6\S.M.i?.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  540,  581.     . 

Terminal  and  movement  expenses. 

131.  A  rate  is  made  up  of  two  classes  of  expenses :  the  cost  of  handling 
the  freight  at  the  stations  or  terminals,  and  the  cost  of  moving  the  same 
from  one  station,  or  terminal,  to  another.  The  terminal  expenses  are  not 
affected  by  the  length  of  the  haul.  They  amount  to  as  much  for  a  ton  going 
ten  miles  as  for  one  going  a  hundred  miles.  The  cost  of  hauling  the  freight 
between  the  stations,  on  the  other  hand,  varies  with  the  length  of  the  haul. 
Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  at.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  258, 
271,  272. 

132.  The  proper  unit  for  the  terminal  expenses  is  the  ton  through 
the  loaded  car.  The  proper  unit  for  the  movement  expenses  is  the  ton  per 
mile.    Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  170,  182. 

133.  In  addition  to  general  considerations  of  cost,  a  rate  to  be  reason- 
able should  take  into  account  any  special  conditions  which  may  operate 
to  either  increase  or  decrease  the  cost  of  handling  above  the  average  of 
all  traffic,  such  as  the  amount  of  terminal  handling  required,  the  kind  of 
equipment  required,  the  regularity  and  amount  of  sifbh  traffic,  and  many 
other  considerations.  Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  527,  530. 

134.  A  detailed  physical  valuation  of  the  terminal  properties  and  a 
detailed  study  of  transportation  movements  in  the  district  were  made; 
the  total  freight  expenses  were  apportioned  among  "Through,"  "In," 
"Out,"  and  "Terminal"  movements;  and  the  costs  of  making  the  terminal 
movements  were  analyzed.  An  ideal  terminal  tarifi"  based  on  the  cost 
and  on  weight  and  distance  is  considered.  In  re  C.  M.  S:  St.  P.  Switching 
Rates  in  Milwaukee,  1914,  14  R.  G.  261,  265. 

Distance. 

135.  As  distance  is  one  of  the  most  important  factors  in  rate  making, 
it  is  obvious  that  rates  in  which  this  factor  has  not  received  attention  are 


Rates-Railroad. — Making  rates — elements  considered     289 

likely  ta  be  out  of  line.    National  Distilling  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1913,  11  R.  G.  424,  427. 

Length  of  haul. 

136.  There  are  many  elements  that  should  be  taken  into  account  in 
estabhshing  the  rates  of  transportation.  The  length  of  the  haul  is  one  of 
these.  It  is  obvious  that,  everything  else  being  equal,  the  cost  of  the  haul 
must  necessarily  vary  with  the  distance.  The  density  of  the  traffic  is  also 
important.  There  is,  perhaps,  no  other  single  factor  that  has  a  greater 
effect  upon  the  cost  per  unit  of  transportation.  Competition,  both  active 
and  potential,  also  affects  the  rates.  Noble  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  6c  0.  R. 
Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  767,  770. 

137.  In  general  it  is  true  and  in  line  with  correct  principles  of  rate 
making  that  the  rate  per  ton-mile  for  short  hauls  is  higher  than  the 
rate  for  long  hauls.  The  reason  for  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that, 
terminal  expenses  remaining  constant,  the  total  cost  in  the  case  of  short 
hauls  must  be  borne  by  a  smaller  number  of  ton-miles,  thus  increasing 
the  cost  per  unit.     Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  &  Si.  P.  R.  Co., 

1914,  13  R.  C.  527,  531. 

Loading  per  car. 

138.  Heavier  loading  stands  for  lower  cost  because  it  reduces  the 
proportion  of  dead  weight  to  pay  weight.  A  relatively  lower  amount  of 
empty  car  mileage  also  means  lower  cost  because  it  means  more  effective 
use  of  the  equipment  or  property  of  the  carrier.  I^ower  value  and  higher 
cost  of  production  usually  stand  for  reduced  ability  to  meet  charges.  In 
re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168,  221. 

139.  The  loading  per  car  is  an  important  element  in  determining  the 
cost  per  each  unit  of  traffic  for  moving  or  transporting  it  between  the 
stations.  Wis.  Pulp  Sz  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  C.  <k  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6 
R.  C.  436,  455-456. 

Local  conditions. 

140.  The  effect  of  special  and  local  conditions  at  various  points  enters 
more  or  less  strongly  in  the  fixing  of  commodity  rates.  Ringle  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  7  R.  C.  598,  600-601. 

Nature  of  transportation  business. 

141.  The  nature  of  the  transportation  business  is  such  that  the  de- 
mand for  simplicity,  uniformity  and  stability  is  necessarily  controlling 
because  even  a  slight  variation  in  basic  rates  would  open  the  way  to  un- 
certainty in  the  minds  of  the  riding  public  and  would  result  in  personal  and 
local  discrimination.  In  re  Milw.  Suburban  <Sc  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  475,  489-490. 

Needs  of  shipper. 

142.  The  needs  of  the  shipper  is  a  question  that  is  frequently,  and  with 
a  great  deal  of  justice,  considered  in  fixing  and  adjusting  rates.  On  this 
point  the  testimony  presented  was  not  very  exhaustive,  but  the  petitioners 
showed  that  they  were  exposed  to  sharp  competition  not  only  in  the  sale 

10 


290     Rates-Railroad.^— Making  rates — elements  considered 

of  the  paper  they  produced  but  in  the  purchase  of  the  logs  or  wood  supply 
for  their  mills.  In  re  Rates  oii  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168,  188;  Elbertson 
V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  593,  598. 

Net  earnings  from  intrastate  traffic. 

143.  In  determining  whether  an  intrastate  rate  is  reasonable  or 
otherwise,  the  net  earnings  which  the  carrier  derives  from  its  interstate 
business  cannot  be  considered.  If  the  net  earnings  of  the  intrastate  traffic 
are  not  sufficient  to  warrant  a  reduction  in  the  rate  or  rates  complained  of, 
it  is  immaterial  that  the  net  earnings  on  the  entire  traffic,  intrastate  and 
interstate,  would  be  sufficient  to  justify  a  reduction.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
Si.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  324,  340-346. 

Public  policy  with  respect  to  prevention  of  monopoly    of  natural 
resource. 

144.  It  is  against  public  policy  to  permit  a  railroad  company  to  put 
into  effect  rates  which  will  operate  to  seclude  large  timber  resources  for 
its  sole  benefit  and  exclude  from  sharing  those  resources  other  portions 
of  the  state  which  have  an  equal  need  for  them,  for  such  action  would  lead 
to  monopoly  of  the  most  offensive  sort.  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn. 
V.  C.  Sz  N.  \V.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  735,  739. 

Purpose  for  which  article  is  intended. 

145.  From  an  economic  point  of  view  the  argument  in  favor  of  allow- 
ing different  rates  on  the  same  commodities  which  are  intended  for  differ- 
ent purposes  is  a  strong  one  and  has  been  well  put  in  the  case  of  Hoover  v. 
Pennsylvania,  156  Pa.  220.  In  this  case  the  court  held  in  substance  that 
an  agreement  to  charge  a  uniform  rate  on  coal  for  consumption  in  the 
operation  of  a  manufacturing  plant  could  not  be  complained  of  as  unjust 
discrimination  against  a  mere  dealer  in  coal,  since  such  discrimination 
was  justifiable  on  the  ground  of  public  policy.  In  re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood, 
1908,  2  R.  C.  168,  194. 

Quality  of  service. 

146.  The  kind  or  class  of  service  that  is  furnished  by  the  carriers  is  a 
factor  that  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the  adjustment  of  rates.  As 
passenger  train  or  express  service  is  more  speedy  and  prompt  and  of  higher 
grade  generally  than  freight  service,  it  may  justify  higher  rates  of 
transportation.    In  re  Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream,  1908,  2  R.  G.  450,  464. 

Rate  of  return. 

147.  Ordinarily  neither  a  legislature  nor  a  commission  created  by  it 
can  fix  rates  so  low  as  to  deprive  the  carrier  of  the  right  to  earn  its  operat- 
ing expenses  and  a  fair  return  on  the' reasonable  value  of  its  investment, 
as  such  action  would  be  violative  of  the  XIV.  amendment  to  the  Gonstitu- 
tion  of  the  United  States,  and  the  validity  of  legislative-made  rates,  and 
of  those  made  by  a  commission  duly  authorized  to  make  them,  stand  on 
the  same  footing  before  the  courts.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  G.  324,  .337-346. 


Rates-Railroad, — Making  rates — elements  considered     291 

Relation  between  freight  and  passenger  traffic. 

148.  Each  branch  of  traffic  should  be  self  supporting.  It  is  important 
to  the  people  of  the  state  that  low  freight  rates  should  prevail,  and  there 
is  no  justification  from  an  equitable  or  an  economic  standpoint  in  weighing 
the  freight  charges  with  any  portion  of  the  burdens  of  the  passenger 
traffic,  even  if  it  could  be  done  without  violating  the  law.  Buell  v.  C.  M, 
<Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  324,  341-346. 

Relation  of  interstate  and  intrastate  traffic. 

149.  Generally  speaking,  the  best  system  of  rates  is  that  under  which 
both  the  interstate  antl  intrastate  traffic  is  made  to  stand  on  its  own  bot- 
tom. Each  should  contribute  its  just  proportion  of  the  expenses  and  pro- 
fits, except  perhaps  under  extraordinary  conditions.  In  re  Rates  on  Live 
Stock,  1907,  1  R.  G.  778,  804. 

Relation  of  rate  to  rates  to  intermediate  points. 

150.  The  respondent  objected  to  the  reduction  of  the  rates  in  question 
on  the  ground  that  their  reduction  would  necessitate,  a  reduction  in  the 
rates  to  intermediate  points.  If  this  view  was  consistently  taken  in  all 
cases  of  this  kind,  regulation  might  be  found  to  be  so  inelastic  as  to  sub- 
serve no  practical  purpose,  and  so  out  of  line  with  public  policy  as  to  be 
directly  harmful.  Wisconsin  Box  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  aL, 
1909,  3  R.  G.  605,  619;  Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St. 
P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 13  R.  G.  527,  532-533. 

Relation  of  weight  to  space. 

151.  The  chief  features  in  determining  the  proper  classification  of 
an  article  are  the  space  occupied  for  each  one  hundred  pounds  of  the  article 
and  the  value  per  hundred  pounds  of  the  same.  Medford  Fruit  Package 
Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  44,  47. 

152.  The  cost  of  transportation  to  the  carriers  is  greatly  affected  by 
the  relation  between  the  weight  and  the  bulk  or  space  required  of  the  com- 
modities transported.  Gommodities  that  are  light  in  proportion  to  their 
bulk  require  relatively  more  space  than  heavier  articles.  The  number  of 
tons  that  can  be  loaded  into  the  car  is,  therefore,  much  less  in  the  former 
case  than  in  the  latter.  In  the  former  case  the  proportion  of  dead  weight 
to  the  pay  freight  is  also  much  greater.  Keogh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  717,  750. 

Risk. 

153.  Risks  are  elements  to  be  considered  in  making  rates.  In  regular 
class  rates  they  are  always  taken  into  account.  In  the  case  of  commodity 
rates  they  may  be  of  less  importance  but  are  not  entirely  disregarded.  In 
re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  G.  168,  214;  So.  Wis.  Cheesemen's 
Protective  Assn.  v.  Rij.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  143,  156;  In  re  Rates  on  Waste 
Lumber  Products,  1906,  1  R.  G.  291,  298;  In  re  Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream, 
1908,  2  R.  G.  450,  465;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908, 
3  R.  G.  32,  36. 


292     Rates-Railroad. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

Space  occupied  by  commodity. 

154.  The  chief  features  in  determining  the  proper  classification  of  an 
article  are  the  space  occupied  for  each  one  hundred  pounds  of  the  article 
and  the  value  per  hundred  pounds  of  the  same.  Medford  Fruit  Package 
Co.v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  aL,  1906,  1  R.  C.  44,  47. 

Special  conditions. 

155.  There  is  no  contradiction  in  fixing  rates  which  are  considered 
to  be  reasonable  as  distance  rates,  and  yet  leaving  lower  commodity  rates 
in  effect  for  points  at  which  special  conditions  may  make  such  rates  reason- 
able.   Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  a!.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  598,  600. 

Traffic  conditions. 

156.  Traffic  considerations  enter  into  the  adjustment  of  rates  at  all 
competitive  points  and  have  to  be  carefully  weighed  in  the  preparation  of 
rate  schedules.  While  the  general  rule  that  a  short  haul  included  in  a 
longer  haul  in  the  same  direction  shall  not  bear  a  greater  rate  than  the 
long  haul  is  unquestionably  just  and  fair  in  a  great  majority  of  instances, 
it  was  found  necessary  to  violate  this  so-called  long-and-short-haul 
principle  in  several  instances  in  order  to  make  the  application  of  a  lower 
rate  possible  at  common  points.  In  re  Rates  on  Grain,  1906,  1  R.  G. 
124,  127. 

157.  The  carriers  get  no  revenue  out  of  the  freight  that  does  not 
move,  so  it  has  become  a  recognized  principle  in  the  making  of  railway 
rates  that  they  should  be  so  adjusted  that  the  traffic  can  move  under 
them.  This,  of  course,  does  not  mean  that  the  carriers  should  haul 
freight  at  an  actual  loss,  but  it  does  mean  that  where  it  is  necessary  to 
haul  freight  at  a  low  margin  of  profit  in  order  to  move  it  at  all,  that 
rates  should  be  made  so  that  the  traffic  can  move.  In  re  Rates  on  Waste 
Lumber  Products,  1906,  1  R.  C.  291,  295. 

158.  The  volume  of  the  traffic  is  an  important  element  in  rate  making, 
chiefly  because  of  its  effect  upon  the  cost  of  transportation.  The  greater 
the  traffic,  other  things  being  equal,  the  lower  the  cost  per  unit  for  trans- 
portation and  the  lower  are  the  rates  charged.  In  re  Rates  on  Pulp 
Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168,  221;  So.  Wis.  Cheesemen's  Protective  Assn.  v. 
Ry.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  143,  156;  Noble  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  767,  770;  In  re  Rates  on  Milk  Sc  Cream,  1908,  2  R.  G.  450, 
465. 

Value  of  commodity. 

159.  The  chief  features  in  determining  the  proper  classification  of  an 
article  are  the  space  occupied  for  each  one  hundred  pounds  of  the  article 
and  the  value  per  hundred  pounds  of  the  same.  Medford  Fruit  Package 
Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  44,  47. 

160.  The  live  stock  traffic  is  relatively  more  costly  to  handle  even 
than  many  other  kinds  of  traffic,  of  which  about  the  same  quantities 
with  respect  to  weight  can  be  gotten  into  the  car.  The  value  of  the 
same,  when  measured  by  the  carload,  also  appears  to  be  fully  up  to  the 
average,  if  not  above  it.  These  facts  are  important.  They  indicate  that 
the  rates  on  live  stock  should  be  relatively  high,  somewhat  higher,  in  fact, 


Rates-Railroad. — Making  rates — elements  considered     293 

than  the  average  rates  for  the  traffic  as  a  whole.     In  re  Rates  on  Live 
..Stock,  1907,  1  R.  C.  778,  810. 

161.  Everything  else  being  equal,  the  rates  of  transportation  usually 
vary  with  variations  in  the  value  of  the  articles  transported.  Articles  of 
greater  value  can  fairly  bear  higher  rates  than  articles  that  are  worth  less. 
As  the  carriers  are  liable  for  damage  and  losses  on  goods  in  transit  the 
risks  involved  are  also  greater  in  the  case  of  high  priced  than  in  the  case  of 
low  priced  articles.  These  conditions  are  of  course  greatly  modified  by 
the  character  of  the  articles  shipped,  their  bulk  in  proportion  to  the 
weight,  their  liability  to  breakage  or  other  damage,  and  by  other  factors; 
but  it  is  quite  plain  that  value  is  one  of  the  important  elements  that 
enter  into  rate  making.  In  re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168, 
211;  So.  Wis.  Cheesemen's  Protective  Assn.  v.  Rij.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  143, 
156;  In  re  Rates  on  Waste  Lbr.  Products,  1906,  1  R.  C.  291,  298;  In  re 
Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream,  1908,  2  R.  C.  450,  465;  Elbertson  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  593,  598;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  32,  36;  In  re  Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
425,  429;  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  546,  549;  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
598,  600. 

162.  The  value  of  the  raw  material,  as  well  as  of  the  products  that 
are  manufactured  from  it,  are  elements  that  usually  must  be  considered 
in  rate  making.  If  the  rates  were  made  the  same  on  all  articles  shipped, 
the  chances  are  that  the  cheaper  ones  among  them  would  not  often  be 
moved  at  all,  and  this  for  the  reason  that  the  rates  would  be  so  high  as  to 
absorb  too  large  a  proportion  of  their  value.  Keogh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co. 
et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  717,  732. 

163.  Low  grade  commodities,  generally  speaking,  must  be  transported 
at  the  lowest  reasonable  rates  if  they  are  to  be  moved  at  all.  For  such 
commodities  the  rate  may  easily  be  so  high  as  to  make  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation exceed  the  cost  of  production.  These  are  factors  that  should 
always  receive  due  consideration  in  rate  making,  for  it  is  usually  to  the 
best  interests  of  all  concerned  that  products  of  nearly  all  kinds  should 
be  moved  from  places  where  they  are  not  needed  to  places  where  there  is 
a  demand  for  them.  Schwoegler  &  Kelly  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  287,  289. 

Value  of  service. 

164.  It  is  impossible  to  ascribe  a  definite  monetary  significance  to 
such  elements  as  alTect  mainly  the  value  of  the  service  to  the  shipper. 
Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11 
R.  G.  365,  377. 

"What  the  traffic  will  bear." 

165.  When  it  is  found  that  certain  commodities  cannot  bear  rates 
that  will  cover  operating  expenses  plus  their  equal  proportion  of  a  reason- 
able profit  on  the  investment,  and  that  there  are  other  commodities 
which  can  bear  these  costs  and  something  besides,  it  is  usual,  and,  for 
the  reasons  given,  in  line  with  the  best  interests  of  both  the  carriers  and 
the  public,  to  so  adjust  the  rates  that  the  former  are  made  to  contribute 


294       Rates-Railroad. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

less  and  the  latter  more  than  their  equal  proportions  of  the  interest  on 
the  investment.  These  facts  must  be  taken  into  consideration  as  a  matter 
of  both  business  and  public  policy.  In  re  Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream, 
1908,  2  R.  C.  450,  466. 

166.  It  is  generally  recognized  that,  within  broad  and  more  or  less 
clearly  defined  limits,  the  rates  should  be  adjusted  to  "what  the  traffic 
will  bear."  The  adoption  of  this  principle  does  not  make  it  necessary 
to  discard  the  cost  theory  of  rate  making,  or  to  disregard  any  of  the  other 
factors  which  enter  into  rates.  All  of  the  elements  involved  can  and  shall 
be  taken  into  account  in  rates  that  are  fixed.  Elberison  v.  C.  St.  P.  M. 
&  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  593,  600. 

167.  An  important  element  that  enters  into  the  question  of  what 
rates  the  traffic  can  fairly  bear,  is  found  in  competitive  conditions.  It  is 
often  found  that  competition  is  so  strong  that  the  regular  rate  of  trans- 
portation would  entirely  prevent  producers  from  entering  certain  markets. 
Whenever  such  conditions  are  met  with,  it  is  often  to  the  best  interests 
of  both  the  carriers  and  the  community  that  they  should  be  fully  considered 
in  adjusting  the  freight  rates.  If  a  slight  shading  in  the  rates  will  enable 
the  articles  to  move,  and  if  this  shading  can  be  made  without  unjust 
discrimination,  it  is  usually  best  for  all  concerned  that  it  should  be  made. 
Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
546,  549. 


XXII.  MAKING  RATES— GRADATION  OF  RATES. 

* 

Way  freight  and  through  hauls. 

168.  The  way  freight  haul  is  relatively  more  costly  than  through 
hauls,  and  it  is  one  of  the  essentials  of  a  rate  schedule  to  provide  for  this 
difference.  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
598,  605. 

XXIII.  MANUFAGTURERS'  RATES. 

Legality  of. 

169.  The  equity  of  lower  freight  rates  for  manufacturers  than  for 
the  general  public  has  been  previously  discussed  by  the  Gommission. 
Sec.  1797-6  of  the  Railroad  Law  is  understood  to  authorize  such  rates, 
and  the  principle  has  been  recognized  by  the  Gommission  in  a  number  of 
cases.  In  re  Rates  on  Construction  Material,  1906,  1  R.  G.  210;  Valvoline 
Oil  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  232;  Cochrane  Co.  d. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  1.;  South  Milwaukee  Fuel  &  Supply 
Co.  V.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  1,  6. 

On  raw  material. 

170.  The  contention  that  a  rate  conditioned  on  the  shipment  of  the 
product  out  over  the  line  bringing  in  the  raw  material,  should  not  be 
granted  to  a  manufacturer  who  is  not  in  position  to  reship  over  such  line 
is  manifestly  correct  where  the  transit  rate  on  the  shipment  of  the  raw 
material  into  the  factory  is  not  sufficiently  high  in  and  of  itself  to  return 
a  fair  compensation  to  the  carrier.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  clear 


Rates-Railroad. — Nested  295 

that  manufacturers,  though  unable  to  guarantee  the  shipment  of  the 
product  out  over  the  same  line,  should  have  rates  on  their  raw  material 
which  are  no  more  than  sufficient  to  yield  an  adequate  return  to  the  carrier 
for  the  services  involved  in  the  separate  shipment  of  the  material  into  the 
factory.  This  reasoning,  it  would  seem,  is,  in  general,  in  line  with  public 
policy.     Gablow^kij  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1912,  8  R.  G.  544,  550. 

171.  While  nearly  all  log  rates  are  constructed  on  the  basis  of  an 
outhaul  of  the  finished  product  and  are  not  directly  comparable  with  the 
traffic  under  consideration  where  reshipment  is  not  taken  into  account, 
yet  upon  any  proportional  allotment  of  rates,  the  ones  in  question  are 
excessive.  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
703,  704. 

XXIV.  MILLING  IN  TRANSIT  RATES. 

Must  be  granted  without  unjust  discrimination. 

172.  Milling  in  transit  privileges  are  generally  recognized  and  may 
result  in  lower  cost  of  production  as  distinguished  from  marketing  the 
products,  but  they  must  be  granted  without  unjust  discrimination.  As  to 
whether  it  is  a  discrimination  to  grant  transit  privileges  to  some  producers 
and  not  to  others  among  those  who  are  using  logs  of  like  kinds  as  raw 
material,  although  the  products  turned  out  are  different,  is  a  question  that 
depends  upon  the  facts  in  each  particular  case.  In  re  Rates  on  Pulp 
Wood,  1908,  2  R.  G.  168,  222. 


XXV.  MINIMUM  GHARGE  ON  PAGKAGE  FREIGHT. 

Reasonableness  of  charge. 

173.  The  present  acute  situation  demands  a  tentative  order.  The 
minimum  charge  of  40  cts.  on  package  freight  now  in  effect  in  shipments 
between  points  in  Wisconsin  is  excessive.  The  former  charge  of  25  cts. 
is  to  be  restored  for  all  shipments  between  points  in  Wisconsin  on  the  same 
line  of  railway.  In  shipments  involving  more  than  one  line  the  minimum 
charge  shall  be  40  cts.  In  re  Minimum  Charges  on  Package  Freight, 
1907,  2  R.  G.  34,  36. 

XXVI.  NESTED. 

Definition  of  term. 

174.  We  are  constrained  to  hold  that  no  commodity  can  properly 
be  regarded  as  nested  within  the  meaning  of  the  classification  or  trunk 
line  rules,  unless  certain  articles  of  a  certain  kind  fit  into  one  another  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  effect  a  substantial  saving  in  space  as  compared  with 
the  amount  of  space  the  same  number  of  the  same  article  would  occupy 
when  not  thus  nested,  but  simply  placed  in  close  proximity  to  one  another. 
The  scarfed  berry  boxes,  set  up  and  crated,  as  shown  in  the  specimen 
crate,  are  therefore  not  to  be  regarded  as  nested  within  the  meaning  of 
the  western  classification  nor  the  western  trunk  line  rules.  Medford 
Fruit  Package  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  44.  50. 


296    ^ Rates-Railroad. — Nested 

175.  The  term  "nested"  as  used  in  the  western  freight  classification, 
covers  a  series  of  two  or  more  like  articles,  fitting  one  within  another.  A 
distinction  is  made  between  articles  simply  nested  and  nested  solid. 
The  latter  term  applies  when  the  outside  and  bottom  surface  of  the  article 
rest  against  the  inside  and  surface  of  the  bottom  of  the  article  below 
without  any  intervening  space,  and  is  exclusive  of  articles  with  projecting 
ears,  handles,  spouts,  etc.,  which  "nest"  but  not  "solid."  The  detailed 
classifications  impose  certain  restrictions  on  certain  articles,  for  instance, 
paper  boxes,  to  satisfy  the  term,  must  save  at  least  one-third  of  the  space. 
Tin  articles  may  be  regarded  as  nested  when  20  per  cent  of  the  space  is 
saved  by  one  article  within  another.  Dinner  pails,  consisting  of  several 
parts,  placed  inside  the  pail  proper,  are  ratable  as  nested.  Gross  v.  U.  S. 
Express  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  342.  344. 


XXVII.  PAYMENT  OF  RATES. 

Shipper  must  pay  lawful  rate. 

176.  The  Commission  cannot  relieve  a  shipper  from  the  payment  of 
the  lawful  established  tariff  charges.  To  do  so  would  be  the  equivalent  of 
suspending  the  operation  of  the  statute,  which  is  not  within  the  power  of 
the  Commission.  It  only  has  authority  to  authorize  refunds  when  the 
payments  made  are  found  to  be  exorbitant,  unusual,  illegal  or  erroneous. 
Paine  Lhr.  Co.  Ltd.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  633,  634. 


'     XXVIII.  PROPORTIONAL  RATES. 

Nature  of. 

177.  As  is  well  known,  proportional  rates  are  rates  applicable  to 
traffic  destined  to  points  beyond  the  line  of  the  carrier  making  the  same. 
Proportional  rates  on  grain  are  in  effect  through  all  the  lake  ports  both 
north  and  south.  The  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  as  well  as  the 
interstate  commerce  commission  has  repeatedlj'^  held  that  a  proportional 
rate  is  not  a  just  measure  of  the  reasonableness  of  a  rate  applied  to  local 
or  inter-line  traffic  terminating  at  the  points  to  which  such  proportional 
rates  apply.  It  follows  that  local  rates  on  grain  in  Wisconsin  cannot  be 
measured  by  the  proportional  rates  which  carriers  have  published,  effective 
on  traffic  to  Michigan  and  Superior  ports,  but  destined  to  points  beyond 
these  ports.    In  re  Rates  on  Grain,  1906,  1  R.  C.  124,  127. 


XXIX.  PUBLISHED  RATES. 

Definition  of. 

118.  The  word  "published"  itself  has  no  technical  legal  significance. 
To  arrive  at  its  meaning  in  a  statute  we  must  have  recourse  to  a  lexicog- 
rapher. The  meaning  of  the  word  is  perhaps  as  well  understood  as  is 
any  definition  of  it.  As  soon  as  the  tariff  in  question  was  issued  by  the 
W.  C.  R.  Co.  and  copies  of  it  were  sent  to  the  stations  at  which  the  com- 
modities moving  under  it  were  received  and  delivered,  and  a  copy  was 
sent  to  the  party  moving  freight  thereunder,  we  think  such  tariff  was 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of — matters  considered  ^297 

made  known  or  divulged  or  proclaimed  or  promulgated,  and  that  it  was 
therefore  published  within  the  meaning  of  the  law.  Menasha  Wooden 
Ware  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  1C8,  116-117. 

XXX.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES. 

Reduction  of  rates  not  to  be  construed  as  an  admission  of  prior 
unreasonableness. 

179.  A  reduction  of  rates,  independently  of  other  considerations, 
should  not  be  held  to  be  an  admission  on  the  part  of  the  railway  company 
that  the  prior  rate  was  either  unusual  or  exorbitant.  Steven  &  Jarvis  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  131,  134;  Brittingham 
&  Young  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  772,  773; 
Block-PoUak  Iron  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  205,  206; 
Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  518, 
519;  Northern  Wood  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1911,  8  R.  G. 
62,  63;  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  697. 

XXXI.  REASONABLENESS     OF     RATES    —     MATTERS     GON- 
SIDERED  IN  DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

Commercial  conditions. 

180.  The  testimony  has  shown  that  the  lumber  industry  is  apparently 
not  in  position  to  stand  a  heavy  increase  in  rates.  No.  Hemlock  cfc  Hardw'd 
Mfrs.  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  241,  245. 

181.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  present  system  of  rates  is  of 
long  standing  and  that  business  has  adjusted  itself  to  these  rates.  It 
follows,  then,  that  what  changes  must  be  made  in  the  interests  of  justice 
between  all  parties  concerned,  must  be  made  slowly  and  with  due  regard 
to  relationships  and  values  created  in  the  past  by  the  rates  which  in  them- 
selves contain  the  elements  of  discrimination.  Waukesha  Lime  So  Stone 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  67.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  534,  536-537.     ' 

Comparative  data. 

182.  While  rate  comparisons  are  dangerous  as  a  measure  of  the  abso- 
lute reasonableness  of  a  proposed  rate,  for  the  reason  that  the  rates  with 
which  comparison  is  made  are  not  proved  to  be  reasonable  and  are  some- 
times the  result  of  peculiar  conditions,  yet  a  comparison  is  of  considerable 
value  in  finding  a  rate  that  is  reasonable  under  all  the  circumstances. 
Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  400,  4P4; 
Krouskop  V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  184,  186;  National  Re- 
fining Co.  et  al.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  326,  333;  Wis.  Lakes 
Ice  cfc  Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  101,  109;  Pulp  Sz 
Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  365, 
389. 

Competitive  conditions. 

183.  A  rate  schedule,  to  have  all  the  good  qualities  it  is  often  said  to 
have,  cannot  be  made  up  without  much  of  any  reference  to  the  rates  on 
other  roads  operating  in  the  same  territory,  and  this  is  expecially  true  when 


298    Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness" of — matters  considered 

the  various  lines  are  located  so  close  to  each  other  as  to  create  cross- 
countrj'^  competition.  Gregory  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  S:  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2 
R.  C.  791,  798;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  198,  3  R.  G.  32, 
36-37;  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  95,  96; 
Arpin  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  441, 
447;  Wis.  Lakes  Ice  Sc  Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  <k  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
101, 109;  In  re  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  Switching  Rates  in  Milwaukee,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
261,  271. 

Cost  of  service. 

184.  Gomnion  carriers  are  ordinarily  entitled  to  rates  for  the  service 
they  render  that  are  high  enough  to  cover  the  cost  of  operation,  including 
reasonable  returns  on  the  investment.  This  principle  is  now  generally 
accepted.  The  controversies  which  mostly  arise  regarding  it  are  usually 
limited  to  what,  in  each  particular  case,  constitute  reasonable  amounts  for 
operating  expenses  and  returns  on  the  investment.  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  95,  96.  Minch  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  599,  606;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1908,  3  R.  G.  32,  36;  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  546,  549-550;  National  Refining  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  326,  333;  Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911, 
7  R.  G.  170,  179-180;  Eau  Claire  Concrete  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  82,  85;  Wis.  Lakes  Ice  cfc  Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  101,  109;  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  365,  390;  No.  Hemlock  Sc  Hardw'd  Mfrs.  Assn. 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  241,  246;  Pennsylvania  Coal  Sc  Supply 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  746,  748. 

Earnings  from  intrastate  traffic. 

185.  The  earnings  from  intrastate  traffic  are  important  elements  in 
determining  the  reasonableness  of  passenger  rates.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St. 
P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  324,  333. 

Financial  condition  of  railroad  company. 

186.  If  the  respondent  railway  company  were  an  old  well  established 
Hne  of  road,  having  a  large  amount  of  traffic  and  earning  a  large  income 
on  its  investment,  instead  of  operating  at  a  deficit,  a  materially  different 
question  would  be  raised  in  reference  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  rate  in 
question  from  that  which  now  confronts  us.  Sandoval  Zinc  Co.  v.  M.  P.  Sc 
N.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  99,  100,  101. 

Loading  per  car. 

187.  While  beets  are  transported  at  lower  than  average  rates,  the 
loading  per  car  is  over  eight  tons  greater  than  the  average,  while  the  de- 
tention of  the  cars  is  somewhat  less  than  the  average  for  the  roads.  The 
lower  rates  on  the  one  hand  are  thus  offset  by  heavier  loading  and  quicker 
service  on  the  other.  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  at.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  258,  275. 

188.  Among  the  facts  which  are  material  in  determining  the  cost  of 
the  service  are  the  loading  per  car  and  the  average  value  oi  the  products 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of — matters  considered     299 

shipped.     Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1912,  9  R.  G.  87,  95. 

189.  As  is  well  known,  a  heavily  loaded  car  is  moved  at  much  less 
expense  per  unit  of  weight  than  a  car  of  light  loading;  and  in  the  same  way 
a  long  haul  is  ordinarily  more  profitable  to  the  railway  company  than  a 
short  haul.  So.  Wis.  Sand  <fc  Gravel  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.y  1912, 
10  R.  C.  436,  440. 


Prevention  of  monopoly  of  natural  resource. 

190.  It  is  against  public  policy  to  permit  a  railroad  company  to  put 
into  elTect  rates  which  will  operate  to  seclude  large  timber  resources  for  its 
sole  benefit  and  exclude  from  sharing  in  those  resources  other  portions  of 
the  state  which  have  an  equal  need  for  them,  for  such  action  would  lead 
to  monopoly  of  the  most  offensive  sort.  In  general  it  is  the  plain  duty  of 
transportation  to  do  all  that  it  may  to  lessen  the  inequalities  existing  be- 
tween industries  located  in  close  proximity  to  the  raw  material  they  re- 
quire and  industries  further  removed  from  their  sources  of  supply.  Pulp 
&  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  735, 
739. 

Purpose  for  which  article  is  intended. 

191.  It  has  been  repeatedly  held  by  the  courts  that  the  purpose  for 
which  the  articles  are  intended  may  properly  be  taken  into  account  in  ad- 
justing rates.  This  principle  is  strongly  supported  by  accepted  economic 
theories,  and  is  perhaps  in  line  with  public  policy  whenever  it  can  be  ap- 
plied without  unjust  discrimination  or  preference  to  'any  one.  Under 
such  circumstances  it  is  manifestly  clear  that  discrimination  must  be  shown 
by  other  facts  than  by  a  mere  difference  in  rates.  Oshkosh  Logging  Tool 
Co.  V.  C.  cfc  A^.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  116,  125. 

Rates  of  return. 

192.  As  a  general  proposition  we  say  that  rates  in  the  aggregate  are 
too  high  when  they  afford  the  carrier  more  than  a  reasonable  rate  of  com- 
pensation on  the  amount  of  its  investment  over  and  above  the  cost  of 
doing  the  business  and  of  keeping  the  road  and  equipment  in  a  good 
state  of  repair.    Buell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  324,  339. 

Relation  to  other  rates. 

193.  In  every  rate  case  which  we  have  heretofore  decided,  involving 
the  reasonableness  of  the  rate  in  itself,  we  have  acted  upon  the  assumption, 
which  we  regard  as  fundamental,  that  every  branch  of  the  railway  service 
shall  pay  its  own  way  and  that  every  class  of  traffic  within  each  branch 
shall,  as  far  as  commercial  and  competitive  conditions  permit,  stand  on 
its  own  bottom.  While,  technically,  the  law,  as  interpreted  by  the  courts 
up  to  the  present  moment,  may  not  require  this  in  all  cases,  we  are  con- 
vinced that  the  spirit  of  the  law  does  require  it.  Equity  positively  de- 
mands it  and  rational  social  and  economic  theory  supports  it.  Streveler  v. 
Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  831,  839. 


300  Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of — matters  considered 

Relation  of  weights. 

194.  The  relation  of  net  weights  to  the  total  gross  weight  of  the  car 
is  an  important  consideration.  Pennsylvania  Coal  &  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  M.,& 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  746,  749. 

Reshipment  clause. 

195.  In  addition  to  the  physical  conditions  making  for  a  low  cost  of 
transportation,  the  reshipment  clause  in  the  saw-log  tariff,  by  which  the 
shipper  is  required  to  transport  his  finished  product  over^the  railroad 
line  that  brought  in  the  raw  material,  is  of  importance  in  justifying  a  low 
basis  of  rates.  No.  Hemlock  Sz  Hardw'd  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  241,  246. 

Traffic  conditions. 

196.  In  passing  upon  rates,  fairly  reliable  data  must  also  be  had 
concerning  the  quantity  of  each  class  and  kind  of  articles  thus  transported. 
Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  32,  36-37;  Allen  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  95,  98-99;  Pennsylvania  Coal  Sc 
Supply  Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  746,  748. 

Value  of  commodity. 

197.  In  passing  upon  rates  it  is  necessary  to  know  the  relation  which 
exists  between  the  value  of  the  commodities  involved,  and  the  value  of 
the  articles  that  are  included  in  each  of  the  various  classes  of  the  classifi- 
cation and  which  are  transported  by  the  carrier.  Webb  Produce  Co.  v. 
C.  A  iV.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  32,  36. 

198.  The  best  interests  of  the  carrier,  as  well  as  of  the  shippers  and 
the  public,  are  generally  subserved  when  the  rates  of  transportation  are 
somewhat  closely  adjusted  to  the  value  of  the  products.  Arpin  Hardwood 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sz  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  441,  446-447;  Mineral 
PL  Zinc  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  583,  594. 

XXXII.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES  IN  PARTIGULAR  GASES. 

All  commodities. 

199.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  all  commodities  passed  upon.  In 
re  Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  392;  Connor  Lbr.  &  Land  Co.  v. 
Laona  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  761. 

Agricultural  implements. 

200.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  agricultural  implements  passed 
upon.  Lindsay  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  114;  Lindsay 
Bros.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  17;  In  re  Rates  on  Agri- 
cultural Implements,  1913,  11  R.  G.  508. 

Auto  gear  frames. 

201.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  auto  gear  frames  passed  upon. 
Mitchell  Lewis  Motor  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  709. 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases  301 

Axles. 

202.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  axles  passed  upon.  Higgins  Spring 
&  Axle  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  180. 

Bags. 

203.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  burlap  bags  passed  upon.  Milwaukee 
Bag  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  182. 

Barley. 

204.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  barley  passed  upon.  Manitowoc 
Malting  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  69;  Owen  Sc  Brother  Co. 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  79. 

Baskets. 

205.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  baskets  passed  upon.  Gross  u. 
U.  S.  Express  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  342. 

Beer. 

206.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer  passed  upon.  Pabst  Brwg.  Co, 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  173;  Gund  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  190;  Pabst  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  <k  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910. 

4  R.  G.  766;  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910, 

5  R.  G.  546;  Mitchell  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  G, 
18;  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
518;  Semrad  Bros.  Sc  Pusch  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912, 
9  R.  G.  76;  1913,  12  R.  G.  236;  Pabst  Brwg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  42;  Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  527;  Ruder  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1914, 14  R.  G.  508. 

Bolts. 

207.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  bolts  passed  upon.  Hanowitz  v. 
M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  333;  Keogh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M. 
Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  717;  Kemmeter  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  518;  Kenfield  Sc  Lamoreaux  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc 
0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  feOO;  Fergot  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
248;  Kenfield  Sc  Lamoreaux  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  465; 
Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409;  Mari- 
nette-Green Bay  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  133; 
Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
746;  Gilman  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stanley,  M.  Sc  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  134; 
Kenfield-Lamoreaux  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
192;  Merrill  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14 
R.  G.  805;  Oshkosh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  178;  Kenfield-Lamoreaux  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 

1914,  15  R.  G.  294;  Barker-Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1915,  15  R.  G.  645. 

Bottles. 

208.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  bottles  passed  upon.  Franzen  Sc 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  77;  Gund  Brwg.  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  82. 


302  Rates — Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 

Box  shooks. 

210.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  box  shooks  passed  upon.  Big  Four 
Canning  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  84. 

Boxes. 

209.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  boxes  passed  upon.  Medford  Fruit 
Package  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  44;  Kieckhefer  Box  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  101;  Wausau  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co. 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  698;  Wausau  Advancement  Assn. 
V.  C.  iSc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  772. 

Brick. 

211.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  brick  passed  upon.  Barney  v. 
G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  4  R.  C.  775;  Rowland  Sc  Son  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  163;  Hopwood  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al, 
1913,  12  R.  C.  217;  Ruedebusch  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1918,  12  R.  G. 
248;  1914,  14  R.  G.  92. 

Brick  and  tile. 

212.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  brick  and  tile  passed  upon.  Ringle 
et  al  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  7  R.  G.  170;  598;  Wis.  Clay 
Mfrs.  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  13  R.  G.  756. 

Buckwheat. 

213.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  buckwheat  passed  upon.  Owen  Sc 
Bro.  Co.  D.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  43. 

Building  materials. 

214.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  building  material  passed  upon. 
Milwaukee  Structural  Steel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
673. 

Butter  and  eggs. 

215.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  butter  and  eggs  passed  upon. 
Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  1;  Webb  Produce  Co. 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  32;  Ellis  and  Sons  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  337. 

Canned  goods. 

216.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  canned  goods  passed  upon.  Columbus 
Canning  Co.  v.  CM.  Sc  Si  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  137. 

Car  stakes. 

217.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  car  stakes  passed  upon.  Pulp 
Wood  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  144;  Rhinelander  Paper 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  84;  Brown  Bros.- Lbr. 
Co.v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  204. 

Castings. 

218.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  castings  passed  upon.  Beaver  Dam 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  703. 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases     303 

Cement.  ^  ■ 

219.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cement  passed  upon.  Cook  Sc  Brown 
Lime  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  298;  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon 
County  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  409. 

Cheese. 

220.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cheese  passed  upon.  So.  Wis. 
Cheesemen's  Protective  Assn.  v.  Ry.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  143;  Stanz  Co.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  579;  Kraft  &  Bros.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
M.  P.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  217. 

Cheese  boxes. 

221.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cheese  boxes  passed  upon.  Parfrey 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  450;  5  R.  C.  551;  Kiel  Wooden 
Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  278;  Parfrey  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  517;  Creamery  Package  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.,  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  761. 

Christmas  trees. 

222.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  christmas  trees  passed  upon.  Allen 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  95. 

Coal. 

223.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  coal  passed  upon.     Noble  et  al.  v 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  767;  Schwartz  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P 
R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  75;  Elbertson  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 
2  R.  C.  593;  Gregory  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  791 
Milwaukee-Western  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  517 
Wis..  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  436 
So.  Milwaukee  Fuel  &  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  1 
1912,  8  R.  C.  473;  Emerald  Co-Op.  Creamery  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  S:  0.  R.  Co. 
1912,  8  R.  C.  683;  Schultz  v.  C.  M.  S:  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  370 
Philadelphia  Sc  R.  C.  Scl.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C 
542;  Elmore  Benjamin  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  396 
Western  Elevator  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  184;  Hale- 
Mylrea  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  709;  Pennsylvania 
Coal  Sc  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  746. 

Coke. 

224.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  coke  passed  upon.  Ideal  Lbr.  Sc 
Coal  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 4  R.  C.171;  South  Milwaukee  Fuel 
Sc  Supply  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  1;  1912,  8  R.  C.  473; 
Pape  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  566;  Callaway  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  694. 

Concrete  blocks. 

225.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  concrete  blocks  passed  upon. 
Eau  Claire  Concrete  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  d  al,  1912,  9  R.  C.  82. 

Construction  material. 

226.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  construction  material  passed  upon. 
La  Crosse  Water  P.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  412; 
6  R.  C.  173. 


304     Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 

Corn. 

227.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  corn  passed  upon.  Ewer  v.  C.  St. 
P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  331. 

Crushed  stone. 

228.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  crushed  stone"  passed  upon.  Wauke- 
sha Lime  &  Stone  Co.  u.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  87,  347; 
In  re  Invest.  Rates  on  Sand  etc.  on  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  98; 
Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  C. 
368;  1914,  15  R.  C.  479. 

Cucumbers. 

229.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cucumbers  passed  upon.  Alart  & 
McGuire  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  340;  Heinz  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  144. 

Dried  brewers'  grains. 

230.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains  passed  upon. 
The  Hottelet  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  705. 

Eggs. 

231.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  eggs  passed  upon.  Stolte,  Dangel  & 
Foss  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  335;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  338. 

Empty  beer  packages. 

232.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  empty  beer  packages  passed  upon. 
Pabst  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  403. 

Excelsior. 

233.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  excelsior  passed  upon.  Selle  Sc  Co.  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  3  R.  G.  595;  Sheboygan  Pad  Co.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  641;  Selle  Sc  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  635;  14  R.  G.  225,  544. 

Farm  wagons,  etc. 

234.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  farm  wagons,  farm  trucks,  gasoline 
engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes  passed  upon.  North- 
western Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  751. 

Feed  and  refuse. 

235.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  feed  and  refuse  passed  upon. 
Schultz  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912.  10  R.  G.  370. 

Fish  boxes. 

236.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  fish  boxes  passed  upon.  New  York 
Fish  Co.  V.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  613. 

Flour. 

237.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  flour  passed  upon.  Listman  Mill 
Co.  p.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  207. 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases     305 

Forest  products. 

238.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  forest  products  passed  upon.  Meyer 
V.  Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  7  R.  C.  401;  Connor  Lbr.  &:  Land  Co.  v. 
Laona  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  761. 

Foundry  patterns. 

239.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  foundry  patterns  passed  upon.  Rom 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  325. 

Fruit. 

240.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  fruit  passed  upon.  Ives  Co.  v.  M, 
St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  675. 

Grain. 

241.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  grain  passed  upon.  In  re  Rates  on 
Grain,  1906,  1  R.  C.  124;  Minch  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1907,  1  R.  C. 
599;  New  Richmond  R.  M.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
610;  Franke  Grain  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  182;  Badlett  <Sc 
Son  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  451;  Osceola  Mill  &  Elevator 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  483;  New  Richmond  Roller 
Mills  Co.  V.  C.  SI.  P.  M.  &  0..R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  488;  Eckhart  v.  C.  B.  & 
Q.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  781;  Osceola  Mill  &  Elev.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  291;  Bell  cfc  Co.  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  430;  Broughton  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  432; 
In  re  Mixed  Carloads  of  Grains  and  Seeds,  1910,  5  R.  G.  711;  Duluth- 
Superior  Millg.  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R:  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  459;  Bacon  &  Co.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  62;  468;  Blodgett  Millg.  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  377;  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon  Co.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409;  New  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Co.  v.  F.  &  N. 
E.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  272;  Wolf  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  375;  Blodgett  Millg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  782. 

Granite  blocks. 

242.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  granite  blocks  passed  upon.  White 
Rock  Quarry  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  669. 

Gravel. 

243.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  gravel  passed  upon.  Waukesha  Lime 
&  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  87;  347;  So.  Wis. 
Sand  &  Gravel  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  436;  In  re 
Invest.  Rates  on  Sand  etc.  on  CM.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  98; 
Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
368;  So.  Wis.  Sand  Sc  Gravel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913.  13  R.  G. 
380;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
479;  Waupaca  Sand  Sc  Gravel  Co.  v.  Waupaca  G.  B.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  482. 

Ground  limestone. 

244.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  ground  limestone  passed  upon. 
Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  u.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14 
R.  G.  718. 


306  Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 

Hardware. 

245.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  hardware  passed  upon.  Stowelt 
Mfg.  Sc  Fdry.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  316. 

Hay. 

246.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  hay  passed  upon.  Johns  Co.  v.  M. 
St.  P:  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  480;  Streveler  et  al  v.  Marathon 
County  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  409;  Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v. 
C.  <Sc  N,  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  ^33;  Northern  Milling  Co.  v.  C.  &  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  468;  Osceola  Mill  cfc  Elevator  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  759. 

< 

Heating  apparatus. 

247.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  heating  apparatus  passed  upon. 
Bailey  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  12  R.  C.  699. 

Hog  fuel. 

248.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  hog  fuel  or  mill  refuse  passed  upon. 
Ellis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  527. 

Ice. 

249.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  ice  passed  upon.  Schneider  v.  C. 
M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  71;  Wis.  Lakes  Ice  Sc  Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  101;  11  R.  G.  62,  171. 

Ice  boat. 

250.  Reasonableness  of  rate  on  ice  boat  passed  upon.  Harvey  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  504. 

Lead  foil. 

251.  Reasonableness  of  rates-  on  lead  foil  passed  upon.  So.  Wis. 
Cheesemen's  Protective  Assn.  v.  Ry.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  143. 

Lime. 

252.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime  passed  upon.  Standard  Lime  <fc 
Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  149;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  87,  347;  Pajf  v.  C.  Sc  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  160;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Si:  St. 
P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  419;  Mace  Lime  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  G.  38;  Superior  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <fc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  160. 

Limestone. 

253.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  limestone  passed  upon.  Waukesha 
Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  471. 

Liquor. 

254.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  liquor  passed  upon.  National  Dis- 
tilling Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  R.  G.  424. 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases  307 

'  Live  stock. 

255.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  live  stock  passed  upon.  In  re  Rates 
on  Live  Stock,  1907,  1  R.  G.  778;  Arries  &  Packham  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  131;  Hoyt  &  Bergen  u.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G. 
532;  Mason  &  Martin  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  74;  Streveler 
et  al  V.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409. 

Logs. 

256.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs  passed  upon.  Streveler  v. 
Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  831;  Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  116;  Hanowitz  v.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908, 
2  R.  G.  333;  Daniel  Shaw  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2 
R.  G.  342;  Edward  Hines  Lbr.  Co.  v.C.  St.  P.  M.  Sz  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
390;  Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  589;  Chip- 
pewa Lbr.  &  Boom  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  607;  Beaver  Dam 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  700;  Stange-Ellis  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  773;  Shong  <k  Son  v.  S.  M.  & 
P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  40;  Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1908,  3  R.  G.  54;  Fountain-Campbell  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0:  R.  Co., 

1908,  3  R.  G.  63;  Green  Bay  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  W.  &  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1909,  3  R.  G.  362;  Flavian  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  385; 
Britton  Cooperage  Co.  u.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  386,  388; 
Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  597;  Ahnapee 
Veneer  &  Seating  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1909, 4  R.  G.  106;  Uniform 
Stave  &  Package  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4R.  G.  193;  Shaw 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <k  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  319;  Manson  Sc  Weinfeld 
V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  362;  Wright  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St. 
P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  770;  Kaiser  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Si.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  G.  196;  Arpin  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  441;  Stange  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  596; 
Ahnapee  Veneer  Sc  Seating  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
643;  Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  645; 
Sprague  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  666;  Buswell 
Lbr.  Sc  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  217;  Roddis  Lbr. 
Sc  Veneer  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  571;  Rust  Owen  Lbr. 
Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  12;  Gablowsky  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  544;  Goodman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Si: 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  41;  Keith  Sc  Hiles  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  57;  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  281;  Ahnapee  Veneer  Sc  Seating  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P. 
Sc  S".  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  482;  Ripon  Veneer  &  Box  Works  v.  C.  cfc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  484;  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathm  County  R. 
Co.  et  al,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409;  Hammond-Chandler  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  564;  Stange  Co.  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  274;  Badger  Basket  Sc  Veneer  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  492;  Stange  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913. 
11  R.  G.  725;  Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 

1913,  11  R.  G.  746;  Nor.  Hemlock  Sc  Hard'd  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  241;  Wachsmuth  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Bayfield  Transfer  R.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  253;  Cumberland  Fruit  Pkg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co. , 


308  Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 

— — — — ■  —  '  ■ '  1 .    ■  ■  I ..         I  ■  .    .  ■  -  ■  ■  —    ■„  — . — __ , 

1914,  14  R.  C.  287;  Sprague  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,' 
14  R.  C.  289;  Wachsmuth  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Bayfield  Transfer  Ry.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  601;  Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  cfc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  624; 
Barker-Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  628; 
Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  703;  Peshtigo 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  43;  John  Week  Lbr.  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  53;  Cumberland  Fruit  Pkg. 
Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  158;  Colby  Cheese  Box  & 
Silo  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  469;  Brown  Bros. 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  569;  Barker- Stewart 
Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  645. 

Lumber. 

257.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber  passed  upon.  G.  W.  Jones 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907. 1  R.  C.  520;  Price  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  611;  Steven  <k  Jaruis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  131;  Shawano  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
775;  Steven  &  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C. 
66;  Price  v.  W.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  3  R.  C.  467;  Wis.  Retail  Lbr. 
Dealers'  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  3  R.  C.  471;  Wis.  Box  Co. 
et  al.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  605;  Ahnapee  Veneer  Sc 
Seating  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  109;  Whittet 
V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  195;  Wis.  Box  Co.  et  al.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  256;  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  271;  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
323;  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  327;  Wausau 
Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  335;  Wausau  Box  Sc 
Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  337;  Heinemann  Lbr.  Co. 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  356;  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  G.  405;  Wausau  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  457;  Wausau  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G. 
459;  GoodwillieBros.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  461;  Goodwillie 
Bros.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  463;  Somo  River  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
W.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  485;  Brittingham  Sc  Young  Co.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  772;  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  M. 
Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  768;  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc 
0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  95;  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  647,  655,  663;  Pelletier  S:  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc 
0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  5  R.  G.  721;  Badger  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  729;  Yawkey-Bissel  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1910,  6  R.  G.  21;  Krouskop  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.'184; 
Yawkey-Bissel  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  209;  Brittingham 
Sc  Young  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  528;  Edward 
Nines  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  14;  Brown  Land 
Jb  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  581;  Connor  Land 
Sc  Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  .7  R.  G.  774;  Krouskop  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  32;  Badger  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  125;  Brittingham  Sc  Young  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1911,  8  R.  G.  131;  Mears-Slayton  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Wis.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911, 
8  R.  G.  247;  Jefferson  Brick  Sc  Tile  Co.  v.  C.  St  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G. 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases    309 

553;  Connor  Land  d:  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  697 
Marinette  &  Menominee  Box  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C 
37;  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409 
Blackwell  <Sc  Kaiser  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  267 
Gillette-O'Leary  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <k  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  276 
A.  S.  Badger  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  434 
Reitbrock  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G 
447;  Steven  <Sc  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Si.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G 
131;  Pounder  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  219;  Foster- 
Latimer  Lbr.  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  239 
Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  701 
Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  772 
Rusk  Box  &  Furniture  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G 
136;  Pierce  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Go.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  754 
Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  823;  Mason- 
Donaldson  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  388; 
Pierce  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  473;  Central 
Wis.  Traffic  Bur.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  521;  Mason- 
Donaldson  Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  575. 

Milk  and  cream. 

258.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  milk  and  cream  passed  upon.  In  re 
Rates  on  Milk  and  Cream,  1908,  2  R.  G.  450;  1909,  3  R.  G.  425;  Greengo 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  532. 

« 

Motor  boat. 

259.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  motor  boat  passed  upon.  Brandel  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  498. 

Oil  (fuel). 

260.^  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  fuel  oil  passed  upon.  Northwestern 
Iron  Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  577. 

Onions. 

261.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  onions  passed  upon.  Alart  Sc 
McQuire  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  340. 

Ore  (iron). 

262.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  iron  ore  passed  upon.  Oglebay^ 
Norton  Sc  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  716. 

Ore  (lead). 

263.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  lead  ore  passed  upon.  Sandoval 
Zinc  Co.  v.  M.  P.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  99. 

Ore  (zinc). 

264.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  zinc  ore  passed  upon.  Sandoval 
Zinc  Co.  v.  M.  P.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  99;  Mineral  PL  Zinc  Co.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  583. 


310    Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 


Paper. 

* 

265.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  paper  passed  upon.  Menasha 
Paper  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908^  2  R.  C.  300;  Cantwell  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W,  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  293;  Phoenix  Wall  Paper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  182;  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  (ScS.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  78. 

Passenger  rates. 

266.  Reasonableness  of  passenger  rates  passed  upon.  Buell  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  I^-  G.  324;  Buell  v.  C.&  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  G.  508;  Houser  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  510;  In  re 
Passenger  Rates  M.  St.  P.  cfc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  540. 

Peas  and  beans.  « 

267.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  peas  and  beans  passed  upon.  John 
H.  Allen  Seed  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  641. 

Petroleum  products. 

268.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  petroleum  products  passed  upon. 
National  Refining  Co.  et  al,  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  326. 

PUing. 

269.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  piling  passed  upon.  Hale-Mylrea 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  639;  Perky  Lowe  &  Co.  v.  W.  & 
M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  108. 

Pine  trimmings. 

270.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  pine  trimmings  passed  upon.  Camp- 
bell V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  197. 

Poles. 

271.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  poles  passed  upon.  Torrey  Cedar 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  185;  10  R.  G.  461. 

Posts. 

272.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  posts  passed  upon.  Tinkham  v. 
C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  4  R.  G.  329;  Schneider  v.  S.  M.  Sc  P.  R.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  G.  64;  Torrey  Cedar  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
185;  10  R.  G.  461;  Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  188. 

Potatoes. 

273.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  potatoes  passed  upon.  Streveler  et  al. 
V.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et  at.-,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409. 

Pulp. 

274.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  pulp  passed  upon.  Menasha  Paper 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  360;  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  6  R.  G.  586;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  8  R.  G.  58;  Wis:  River  Paper  Sc  Pulp 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  8  R.  G.  64;  Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.  v. 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases    311 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  400;  Flambeau  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  R.  C.  699;  Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  690. 

Rutabagas. 

275.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  rutabagas  passed  upon.  Engesether  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  8  R.  G.  504. 

Rye. 

276.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  rye  passed  upon.  Krouskop  v.  C. 
M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  178;  Stevens  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914, 15 
R.  G.  524. 

Salt. 

277.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  salt  passed  upon.  Kaufmann  Sc  Co. 
V.  W.  <Sc.  N.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6.  R.  G.  497;  Morton  Salt  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  499.     . 

Sand. 

278.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  sand  passed  upon.  Waukesha  Lime 
S:  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  347;  So.  Wis. 
Sand  &  Gravel  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  436;  In  re 
Invest.  Rates  on  Sand^etc.  on  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  98; 
So.  Wis.  Sand  Sc  Gravel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  380; 
Moritz  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  684;  International  Harvester 
Corp.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  164;  Waupaca  Sand  &  Gravel 
Co.  V.  Waupaca-G.  B.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  482;  Nordberg  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  648. 

Scrap  iron. 

279.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  scrap  iron  passed  upon.  Benesch 
Bros.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  383;  Mayer  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  4  R.  G.  268;  Block-Pollak  Iron  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
6  R.  G.  205;  1911,  6  R.  G.  548;  Mayer  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  8 
R.  G.  32S;  Summit  Stove  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  186; 
Locke  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  366. 

Seed  peas. 

280.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  seed  and  dried  peas  passed  upon. 
Leonard  Seed  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  97. 

Silos. 

281.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  silos  passed  upon.  Vesper  Wood 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  15  R.  G.  442. 

Slabs. 

282.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  slabs  passed  upon.  Menasha  Paper 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  39. 

Slag. 

283.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  slag  passed  upon.  International 
Harvester  Corp.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  640. 


312    Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 

Springs. 

284.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  springs  passed  upon.  Higgins  Spring 
iSc  Axle  Co.  V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  384;  1911,  8  R.  C.  36; 
283;  Higgins  Spring  &  Axle  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  180. 

Stone. 

285.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  stone  passed  upon.  Johns-Manville 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  114;  Schwoegler  &  Kelly  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  287,  635;  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  167;  Fargo  v.  C.  M.  <Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  162. 

Stone  paving  blocks. 

286.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  stone  paving  blocks  passed  upon. 
Milwaukee  Sand  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  671. 

Stone  tailings. 

287.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  stone  tailings  passed  upon.  Carl 
Frontz  v.  Mineral  Pt.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  217. 

Structural  iron. 

-  288.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  structural  iron  passed  upon.    Pietsch 
Iron  Works,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.*  G.  540. 

Sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp. 

289.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp  passed  upon. 
Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  258. 

Tanbark. 

290.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  tanbark  passed  upon.  Albert 
Trostel  &  Sons  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  761;  Wright  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  175;  Barker  &  Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  141;  Barker  &  Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C. 
M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  537;  Westboro  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  378. 

Ties  and  rails. 

291.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  ties  and  rails  passed  upon.  New 
Dells  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  186. 

Tile  and  brick. 

292.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick  passed  upon.  Ringle 
et  al.  V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  170;  Wis.  Clay  Mfrs. 
Assn.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  13  R.  G.  756. 

Tobacco. 

293.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  tobacco  passed  upon.  American 
Cigar  Co.  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  807;  Borden  Co.  v. 
L.  C.  &  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913.  11  R.  G.  439. 


Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases  313 


Twine. 

294.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  twine  passed  upon.  Kraft,  Radtke  Sc 
Quilling  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  ei  al,  1913,  13  R.  C.  393. 

Waste  lumber  products. 

295.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  waste  lumber  products  passed  upon. 
In  re  Rates  on  Waste  Lumber  Products,  1906,  1  R.  G.  291. 

Whey  butter. 

296.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  whey  butter  passed  upon.  So.  Wis. 
Cheesemen's  Protective  Assn.  v.  Ry.  Cos.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  143. 

Wire  fencing,  barb  wire,  staples  and  nails. 

297.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  wire  fencing,  barb  wire,  staples  and 
nails  passed  upon.  Capital  Fence  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12 
R.  C.  756. 

Wood  (cord) 

298.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  cordwood  passed  upon.  In  re  Rates 
on  Cordwood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  705;  Harrison  v.  D.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
801;  Whittet  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  480;  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co. 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  226;  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  6c 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  669;  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  13  R.  G.  372;  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  650. 

Wood  (fuel) 

299.  Reasonableness  of  rate  on  fuel  wood  passed  upon.  Mace  Lime 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  590;  Druecker  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  594;  Barnes  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  4  R.  G.  478; 
Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  199;  Morgan  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  165;  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon 
County  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  409;  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sb  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  400;  Northern  Wood  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  706;  Sullivan  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
687;  Miller  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  707;  Johnson  Sc  Hill  Co. 
V.  M.  St.  P,  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  752. 

Wood  (kiin) 

300.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  kiln  wood  passed  upon.  In  re  Appl. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1905,  1  R.  G.  16;  Standard  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v. 
CM.Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  228;  Maxson  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  269;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  372;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  13  R.  G.  650. 

Wood  (pulp) 

301.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  pulp  wood  passed  upon.  Island  Paper 
Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  234;  Dells  Paper  Sc  Pulp  Co.  v.  C.  St. 
P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.;129;  In  re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2 
R.  G.  168;  Pulp  Wood  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  250; 


314  Rates-Railroad. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 

Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  620; 
Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C. 
127;  Wis.  Pulp  Sz  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8 
R.  C.  16;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8 
R.  C.  105;  1912,  9  R.  C.  Ill;  Streveler  et  al.  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.  et 
al,  1912,  10  R.  C.  409;  Pulp  Wood  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C. 
144;  Pulp  <Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  &.  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913, 
11  R.  e.  365;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  393;  Wausau  Paper  Mill  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11 
R.  C.  417;  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1914,  13  R.  C.  735;  15  R.  G.  66;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  171. 

Wood  (slab) 

302.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  slab  wood  passed  upon.  Nelson- 
Berry  Lbr.  Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1907,  2  R.  G.  95;  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v. 
C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  222;  Northern  Wood  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  etal,  1911,  8  R.  G.  62;  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  M. 
St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  13  R.  G.  372;  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  13  R.  G.  650;  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  775;  Browndeer  Lbr.  &  Fuel  Co.  v.  G. 
B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  138. 

Wrappers. 

303.  Reasonableness  of  rates  on  bottle  wrappers  passed  upon.  Oshkosh 
Bottle  Wrapper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  333. 

XXXIII.  REDUGTION  IN  RATES. 

Gradual  reductions  desirable. 

304.  It  is  frequently  found  that  gradual  reductions  in  rates  are  better 
suited  to  commercial  conditions  than  more  sweeping  ones.  Pulp  Sc  Paper 
Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  R.  G.  365. 

XXXIV.  RELATION  OF  RATES. 

Adjustment  for  differences  in  cost  of  production. 

305.  While  the  practice  of  adjusting  rates  so  as  to  offset  differences 
in  the  cost  of  production  would  ordinarily  be  out  of  line  with  public 
policy  as  well  as  contrary  to  sound  economic  principles,  the  weaker  pro- 
ducers should  be  granted  rates  that  are  relatively  as  favorable  as  the  rates 
under  which  the  stronger  or  better  situated  producers  are  shipping. 
Ringle  et  al  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  7  R.  G.  170,  183. 

Change  of  relation  to  which  business  has  been  adjusted. 

306.  The  practice  of  charging  a  switching  rather  than  a  distance 
tariff  rate  for  transferring  cars  from  one  place  to  another  within  the  yard 
limits  is  one  of  long  standing,  and  to  which  business  conditions  generally 
have  become  adjusted.  This  practice,  therefore,  should  not  be  changed 
except  for  very  good  reasons.    In  fact,  it  is  our  opinion  that  it  should  not 


Rates-Railroad. — Switching  rates 315 

be  altered  except  when  unreasonable  or  when  found  necessary  and  proper 
in  the  more  general  readjustments  of  the  freight  rates,  or  because  of  other 
commercial  conditions.  Sinaiko  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  Si.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4 
R.  C.  432,  436. 

Rate     adjustments — Disturbance     of    rate     adjustment     through 
change  in  concentration  rate. 

307.  Any  just  change  in  the  rate  situation  with  respect  to  concen- 
tration rates  would  necessarily  involve  alterations  in  both  the  rates  on 
the  material  in,  and  in  the  rates  on  the  products  out.  F ergot  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  248,  253-254. 

Disturbance  of  rate  adjustment  through  withdrawal  of  con- 
centration rate. 

308.  A  considerable  proportion  of  the- rate  adjustments  in  this  state 
are  based  upon  stoppages  in  transit;  that  is,  such  privileges  are  granted 
on  many  of  the  leading  commodities  of  commerce;  but,  as  an  offset  to 
this,  the  local  rates,  and  often  also  the  rates  from  concentrating  and  from 
manufacturing  points  out  to  the  markets,  are  kept  at  a  high  level.  The 
latter  rates  are  usually  high  enough  to  make  up  for  deficiencies  in  the  form- 
er. As  long  as  this  condition  exists,  it  would  hardly  seem  to  be  fair  to 
raise  one  of  these  rates  without  also  lowering  the  other.  At  any  rate  no 
such  changes  should  be  made  unless  there  are  good  reasons  for  it.  Coch- 
rane Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  1,  29;  Arpin  Hardwood 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  441,  446. 

Relation  on  the  various  classes  of  freight. 

309.  The  relation  which  the  rates  on  the  various  classes  of  freight  and 
the  various  commodities  ought  to  bear  to  each  other  are  largely  questions 
of  classification.  It  depends  upon  such  factors  as  the  value  of  the  articles, 
their  bulk  in  proportion  to  their  weight,  the  risks  involved,  the  nature  of 
the  articles  generally,  and  on  many  other  factors.  Wis.  Pulp  Sc  Paper 
Mfrs.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6.  R.  C.  436,  455. 

XXXV.  SPECIAL  SERVICE  RATES. 

Unusual  facilities  and  equipment. 

310.  A  carrier  may  charge  for  the  special  service  rendered  in  transport- 
ing goods  which  require  unusual  facilities  and  equipment,  compensatory 
rates  which  cover  both  the  cost  of  the  service  and  the  risk  incurred  in  the 
service  growing  out  of  the  nature  of  the  goods  carried.  Ellman  v.  I.  C. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  240,  248. 

XXXVI.  SWITCHING  RATES. 

Absorption  of  charges. 

311.  Matter  of  absorption  of  charges  passed  upon.  Blodgett  Milling 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  377;  So.  Wis.  Sand  Sc  Gravel  Co. 
et  al.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  436;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  368;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone 


316 Rates-Railroad. — Switching  rates 

Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  372;  Waukesha 
Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  13  R.  C.  650;  Callaway 
Fuel  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  694;  Blodgett  Milling 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  782;  Barkhausen  Coal  &  Dock  Co. 
et  al.  V.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  172. 

Internal  switching  rates. 

312.  The  charge  for  switching  service  where  the  movement  is  within 
the  yard  Hmits  and  between  different  parts  of  the  same  plant  depends 
largely  on  local  conditions.  Columbus  Canning  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  137,  138. 

Reasonableness  of  switching  rates  in  particular  cases. 

313.  Reasonableness  of  switching  rates  passed  upon.  County  of 
Milwaukee  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  377;  Duluth-Superior 
Millg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  598;  In  re  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co's  Waupaca  Switching  Rates,  1913,  11  R.  C.  485;  Summit  Stove 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  186;  Connor  Lbr.  Sc  Land  Co.  v. 
Laona  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  761;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co. 
V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  13  R.  C.  372;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc 
Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  534;  Waukesha 
Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  650;  Callaway 
Fuel  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  694;  Mason-Donaldson 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  82;  Rusk  Box  Sc 
Furniture  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  136;  In  re 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  Switching  Rates  in  Milwaukee,  1914,  14  R.  G.  261;  Peshtigo 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  43;  Mason-Donaldson 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  388;.  Kieckhefer 
Box  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  564. 

Reciprocal  switching  rate. 

314.  In  general,  in  order  for  a  reciprocal  rate  to  be  granted,  it  is 
necessary  that  the  industries  and  the  volume  of  traffic  originating  from 
them  be  distributed  fairly  equally  between  the  roads  at  the  junction  point. 
In  re  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co's  Waupaca  Switching  Rates,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
485,  488. 

315.  A  reciprocal  rate,  or  the  charge  as  between  carriers  for  switching 
service  should  not  differ  from  that  rate  quoted  the  individual  shipper  for 
the  same  service,  and  either  rates  should  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  costs 
incurred  and  contribute  in  some  part,  large  or  small,  depending  upon  other 
conditions,  to  the  return  of  the  carrier  upon  its  investment.  Waukesha 
Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  534,  536. 

Reductions  due  to  service  performed  by  shipper. 

316.  In  view  of  the  provisions  of  sec.  1797-22.2  of  the  statutes,  the 
general  state  of  industry  in  the  Milwaukee  Terminal  District  and  other 
facts  brought  out  in  the  instant  case,  the  reduction  in  rates  asked  for  in 
behalf  of  shippers  doing  their  own  spotting  and  hauling  cannot  be  granted 
for  the  reason  that  it  would  not  operate  alike  upon  all  shippers.  In  re 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  Switching  Rates  inJMilwaukee,  1914,  14  R.  G.  261,  281-283. 


Rates-Railroad. — Trainload  rates 317 

Substitution  of  distance  tariff  rate  for  switching  charge. 

317.  Carriers  ordered  to  apply  switching  charge  instead  of  distance 
tariff  rate.  Clark  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  590;  Sinaiko 
Bros.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  Sf.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  432;  5  R.  C.  426;  Superior 
Crushed  Rock  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  449;  Western 
Ind.  Constr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  309;  Teasdale  v. 
C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  66;  Gillette-0' Leary  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  276;  Columbus  Canning  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  137;  Summit  Stove  Co.  u.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  186;  Milwaukee  Structural  Steel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St. 
P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  673;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  171. 

Substitution  of  general  switching  charge  for  commodity  switch- 
ing charge. 

318.  Apphcation  of  general  switching  charge  instead  of  commodity 
switching  charge  held  unreasonable.  Superior  Crushed  Rock  Co.  v.  C. 
St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  219. 

Substitution  of  switching  charge  for  commodity  rate. 

319.  Application  of  switching  charge  instead  of  commodity  rate  held 
unreasonable.    Morse  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  531. 

Transferring  car  from  one  line  to  another. 

320.  Under  the  provisions  of  sec.  1797-11,  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905,  as 
that  section  is  amended,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  respondent  to  receive  the 
car  in  question  and  switch  and  deliver  the  same  on  its  team  track,  it  being 
entitled  to  receive  a  reasonable  compensation  for  the  service  requested. 
Clark  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  590,  598. 

XXXVII.  TERMINAL  GHARGE. 

Establishment  of  terminal  charge. 

321.  Terminal  charge  established.  Plumb  Sc  Nelson  Co.  v.  W.  C. 
R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  19. 

XXXVIII.  TRAINLOAD  RATES. 

Discriminatory  tendency  of  trainload  rates. 

322.  Trainload  rates  have  already  been  condemned  by  this  Com- 
mission although  there  has  been  no  occasion  heretofore  to  pass  directly 
upon  their  legality.  Edward  Mines  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co, 
1908,  2  R.  G.  390-391;  Heinemann  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
9  R.  G.  281-283.  The  same  principle  has  been  laid  down  by  the  interstate 
commerce  commission  in  several  decisions.  {Carstens  Packing  Co.  v. 
Oregon  S.  L.  R.  Co.,  1909,  17  I.  G.  G.  R.  324;  Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co. 
V.  C.  Sc  E.  R.  Co.,  1910,  19  I.  G.  G.  R.  592.)  Nor.  Hemlock  Sc  Hardw'd  Mfrs, 
Assn.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  241,  245;  Connor  Lbr.  Sc  Land. 
Co.  V.  Laona  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  761,  765. 


318 Rates-Street  Railway. — In  general 

RATES— STREET  RAILWAY. 

Discrimination  in  street  railway  rates,  see  Discrimination,  54-64. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

II.  COMMUTATION  ZONE  RATES. 

III.  CUSTOMARY  RATES. 

IV.  FARE  LIMITS. 

V.  JOINT  OR  THROUGH  RATES. 

VI.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

VII.  MINIMUM  FARES. 

VIII.  REASONABLENESS    OF    RATES— MATTERS    CONSIDERED    IN 
DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

IX.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR  CASES. 

X.  TRANSFERS. 

XI.  ZONE  SYSTEM  RATES. 


L  IN  GENERAL, 

Effect  of  Railroad  Commission  Law  on  existing  rates. 

1.  It  is  contended  that  ch.  362,  laws  1905,  has  superseded  the  contract 
involved  in  this  suit  and  that  therefore  the  contract  no  longer  has  any 
binding  force  or  effect.  We  do  not  think  so.  The  statute  worked  no 
change  in  existing  rates.  It  simply  provided  that  all  rates  should  be 
reasonable,  and  left  to  the  Railroad  Commission  the  power  to  determine 
the  fact  as  to  whether  or  not  a  given  rate  was  reasonable.  When  that 
determination  was  reached  the  law  became  operative  upon  the  particular 
rate  called  in  question,  and  the  rate  arrived  at  then  became  the  lawful 
rate  and  continued  so  until  set  aside  in  the  manner  provided  by  law. 
*  *  *  Until  that  determination  is  made,  the  contract  is  in  force.  When 
it  is  made,  the  contract  is  superseded,  if  the  rate  is  changed.  The  Com- 
mission has  ample  authority  to  proceed  upon  its  own  motion.  (City  of 
Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  &  N.  Tr.  Co.,  1911,  145  Wis.  13,  29.)  City  of 
Neenah  u.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  Sc  P.  Co.,  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  398,  400. 

Power  of  state  to  regulate  rates. 

2.  The  Commission  has  the  power  to  vary  a  rate  fixed  in  a  special 
franchise  gtanted  by  a  municipality  to  a  street  railway  company.  {City 
of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  &  N.  Tr.  Co.,  1911,  145  Wis.  13,  29-30). 
City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  <Sc  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  400,  401. 

3.  Ch.  362  of  the  laws  of  1905,  known  as  the  Railroad  Commission 
Law,  provides  that  the  charge  made  for  any  service  rendered  or  to  be 
rendered  in  the  transportation  of  persons  or  property  or  for  any  service 
in  connection  therewith,  shall  be  reasonable  and  just,  and  prohibits  and 
declares  unlawful  every  unjust  and  unreasonable  charge  for  such  service. 
The  Railroad  Commission  is  empowered  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of 
this  law  by  holding  hearings,  conducting  investigations,  and  determining 
and  establishing  reasonable  charges.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  & 
L,  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  11;  Cusick  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  et  al., 
1912,  10  R.  C.  314,  335. 


Rates-Street  Ry. — Making,  rates — elements  considered      319 


II.  COMMUTATION  ZONE  RATES. 

Carrier  to  issue  commutation  zone  rate  tickets. 

4.  The  Commutation  zone  tickets  ordered  in  the  present  proceeding 
will  effect  a  reasonable  reduction  in  fare  for  the  regular  patron.  By  their 
use  a  passenger  will  be  enabled  to  ride  through  the  greater  part  of  the 
village  for  a  nickel  fare,  while  the  through  fares  will  still  conform  to  the 
distance  principle.  Sold  through  the  conductors  in  units  small  enough 
to  be  within  the  reach  of  all,  they  should  be  preferable  to  the  system  of 
mileage  books  suggested.  However,  the  company  is  ordered  to  rearrange 
the  zones  of  the  line  in  question,  so  as  to  place. the  limits  practically  a 
mile  apart,  and  cause  the  short  zone  to  be  at  the  end  of  the  line.  In  re 
Milwaukee  Suburban  cfc  Inferurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  15  R.  C.  330,  341,  342. 

III.  CUSTOMARY  RATES. 

Customary  rates  not  necessarily  reasonable. 

5.  The  contention  made  by  the  respondent  that  no  reduction  in  the 
rate  of  fare  is  permissible  on  the  ground  that  the  usual  and  regular  fare^ 
of  street  railways  in  cities  of  a  similar  size  is  5  cts.,  does  not  seem  tenable. 
Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  Street  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  1,  29. 

IV.  FARE  LIMITS. 

Extension  of  single  fare  limits. 

6.  Single  fare  limits  ordered  extended.  Cusick  et  al.  v.  T:  M.  E.  R. 
<Sc  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  314;  Koenig  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co. 
et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  337;  Village  of  East  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L. 
Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  358;  In  re  Milm.  Suburban  &  Interurban  Ry. 
Rates,  1914,  13  R..C.  475. 

V.  JOINT  OR  THROUGH  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

7.  Joint  rates  established  by  Commission.  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis. 
Tr.  Li.  H.  <Sc  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  398;  1911,  6  R.  C.  690;  Cusick 
et  al.  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  ^U;  Koenig  et  al.  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  10  R.  C.  337;  Village  of  East  Milw.  u. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  358;  In  re  Milw.  Suburban  & 
Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  C.  475. 

VI.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

Cost  of  service. 

8.  It  has  been  contended  that  the  basic  rate  in  the  instant  case 
should  be  placed  upon  a  cost-of-service  basis.  When  the  conditions 
prevailing  on  the  interurban  system  as  indicated  by  the  passenger  density 
per  car-mile  are  considered,  however,  it  seems  best  to  place  the  rate  at  a 
figure  lower  than  the  cost  of  service  would  demand  so  as  to  encourage 


320      Rates-Street  Ry. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

the  passenger  density  to  increase  sufficiently  to  bring  the  revenues  to  the 
point  where  they  will  bring  an  adequate  return  above  all  expenses.  In  re 
Milw.  Suburban  Sc  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  G.  475,  488-489. 

Financial  conditions. 

9.  Facts  and  circumstances  other  than  financial  conditions,  such  as 
value  of  the  service,  uniformity,  existing  and  future  possible  traffic,  etc., 
must  undoubtedly  be  considered  when  single  fare  extensions  are  in  ques- 
tion. In  the  instant  case  no  good  reasons  appear  for  abandoning  the 
general  basis  employed  in  former  cases.  Recent  developments,  however, 
indicate  that  it  is  justifiable  from  an  economic  as  well  as  from  a  legal 
point  of  view  to  lay  somewhat  more  emphasis  upon  financial  conditions. 
In  re  Milwaukee  Suburban  Sc  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  15  R.  C.  330, 
335. 

Nature  of  transportation  business. 

10.  The  nature  of  the  transportation  business  is  such  that  the  demand 
for  simpUcity,  uniformity  and  stabihty  is  necessarily  controlling  because 
even  a  slight  variation  in  basic  rates  would  open  the  way  to  uncertainty  in 
the  minds  of  the  riding  public  and  would  result  in  personal  and  local 
discrimination.  In  re  Milw.  Suburban  &  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914, 
13  R.  C.  475,  489-490. 

Traffic  conditions. 

11.  It  has  been  contended  that  the  patrons  of  those  separate  lines  or 
sections  of  lines  having  a  higher  traffic  density  and  operating  upon  a 
better  revenue  basis  should  be  granted  fares  lower  than  the  fares  computed 
upon  a  mileage  basis.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  see  the  justice  of  estab- 
lishing such  fares,  especially  when  it  is  the  object  of  this  revision  of  existing 
rates  to  abohsh,  so  far  as  practicable  for  the  present,  all  special  fares 
involving  local  discrimination,  and  to  bring  about  simplicity,  uniformity 
and  stability  in  the  rate  schedules  applying  to  these  lines  by  disregarding 
any  difference  in  revenues  or  operating  conditions.  In  re  Milw.  Suburban 
<Sc  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  G.  475,  489. 

12.  A  uniform  commutation  rate  is  essential  to  retain  existing  and 
develop  future  traffic,  and  this  defect  in  respondents'  schedules,  as 
authorized  by  the  order  in  question,  must  be  remedied.  Due  considera- 
tion being  given  to  the  traffic  and  financial  conditions,  it  is  considered 
that  thirty  tickets  for  50  cts.  will  be  equitable  and  convenient.  In  re 
Milwaukee  Suburban  Sc  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914,  15  R.  G.  330,  339. 


VII.  MINIMUM  FARES. 

Reasonableness  of. 

13.  Minimum  fares  find  their  justification  in  grounds  of  public 
policy  and  in  transportation  costs,  and  5  cts.  is  a  logical  minimum  under 
existing  conditions.  In  re  Milwaukee  Suburban  Sc  Interurban  Ry.  Rates, 
1914,  15  R.  G.  330,  348. 


Rates-Street  Ry. — Reasonableness  of — matters  considered    321 


VIII.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS  CONSIDERED 
IN  DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

Comparative  data. 

14.  Definite  conclusions  as  to  what  constitutes  the  customary  charge 
or  the  value  of  the  service,  when  based  upon  generalized  data  of  the 
character  presented  in  the  present  case,  are  always  difficult.  Compari- 
sons are  likely  to  be  misleading  unless  they  are  accompanied  by  a  careful 
consideration  of  conditions  and  facts  in  each  particular  case.     City  of 

'Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  cfc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  24-25. 

Cost  of  service. 

15.  In  the  matter  of  reasonableness  of  rates,  the  Commission  has 
always  held  that  public  utilities,  for  adequate  service  and  under  normal 
conditions,  are  ordinarily  entitled  to  rates  that  will  cover  reasonable 
amounts  for  operating  expenses,  including  depreciation  and  interest  and 
profit  on  a  fair  valuation  of  the  property  used  and  useful  in  serving  the 
public.     City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  85. 

Allowance  for  paving  to  be  constructed  in  the  future. 

16.  It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  provide  for  paving  costs  in  the 
distant  future  as  conditions  at  that  time  may  have  changed  considerably, 
and  to  provide  for  the  paving  work  which  may  reasonably  be  expected 
within  the  near  future,  say  four  or  five  years,  is  no  doubt  all  that  can  be 
reasonably  expected  here.  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  in 
Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178,  233. 

Decrease  in  earnings  due  to  quantity  rate  on  tickets  prescribed  in 
previous  order  of  Commission. 

17.  Allowance  is  made  in  the  instant  case  for  the  reduction  of 
earnings  resulting  from  the  provisions  of  the  order  in  City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  <k  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  305,  which  requires  the  sale  of 
thirteen  tickets  for  50  cts.  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sd  L.  Co.  in 
Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178,  235-236. 

Financial  condition  of  company. 

18.  The  propriety  of  the  requested  modification  must  be  determined 
by  consideration  of  changes  affecting  the  company's  financial  condition 
which  have  occurred  since  December  31,  1911,  as  the  Commission's 
ord-er  was  based  upon  conditions  then  existing  and  knowledge  then  at 
hand.  In  re  Modification  Milwaukee  Urban  Fare  Decision,  1915,  15  R.  C. 
724,  751. 

Investment. 

19.  The  value  of  the  property  used  and  useful  for  street  railway 
purposes  in  Milwaukee  upon  which  the  company  is  entitled  to  a  fair 
return,  is  the  most  important  single  factor  affecting  the  determination  of 
whether  the  company's  present  rate  of  fare  is  unreasonable  and  excessive. 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <k  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  63. 

11 


322     Rates-Street  Rg. — Reasonableness  of — matters  considered 

Relation   of  urban,    suburban   and   interurban   earnings   and   ex- 
penses. 

20.  Suburban  system  earnings  and  expenses  can  seldom,  if  ever, 
when  as  closely  cpnnected  with  the  city  system  activities  as  in  Milwaukee, 
be  considered  independently  in  the  adjustment  of  fgires  or  modification  of 
service,  and  this  principle  was  recognized  in  the  decision  in  question,  and 
in  the  subsidiary  cases.  As  a  rule,  and  in-  the  present  case,  no  such 
intimate  relation  exists  between  the  activities  of  interurban  cities  and 
the  terminal  city  as  between  suburbs  and  their  urban  center,  and  the 
contention  that  in  the  present  case  the  interurban  railways  leading  from 
the  city  should  be  considered  in  connection  with  a  distribution  of  the 
profits  of  urban  operation  is  not  tenable.  In  re  Modfication  Milwaukee 
Urban  Fare  Decision,  1915,  15  R.  C.  724,  733,  734. 


IX.    REASONABLENESS    OF   RATES    IN   PARTICULAR    CASES. 

Reasonableness  determined. 

21.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  street  railway  rates  was  passed 
upon  in  the  following  cases:  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  662;  Fullmer  v.  Wausan  Street  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  520; 
1910,  5  R.  C.  114;  In  re  AppL  Waupaca  EL  Lt.  &  Ry.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
190;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1;  Superior 
Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  Street  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  1;  Rodolph  et  al. 
V.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  49;  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc 
L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178;  In  re  Milw.  Suburban  <&:  Inter- 
urban Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  G.  475;  15  R.  C.  330;  In  re  Modification 
Milwaukee  Urban  Fare  Decision,  1915,  15  R.  C.  724. 

X.  TRANSFERS. 

Transfer  privileges  on  payment  of  single  fare. 

22.  Under  the  order  of  the  Commission  in  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T. 
M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  8  W.  R.  C.  R.  535,  there  is  at  present  effective 
a  system  of  double  transfers  over  the  16th  street  viaduct,  one  of  the 
respondent  company's  crosstown  lines.  Under  the  present  circumstances 
it  does  not  appear  necessary  to  extend  the  use  of  the  double  transfer. 
In  re  Double  Transfers  in  the  City  of  Milwaukee,  1912,  10  R.  C.  352. 

23.  In  order  to  facilitate  travel  and  relieve  congestion  in  the  down- 
town district,  it  is  now  necessary  that  the  matter  of  double  transfers 
should  receive  general  consideration.  The  company  should  make  a 
study  of  the  matter  and  extend  the  double  transfer  system  where  it  is 
necessary  to  secure  the  desired  results,  and  if  this  is  not  accomplished 
in  a  satisfactory  manner,  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  Commission  to  make 
further  investigations  and  formally  consider  this  question.  In  re  Service 
of  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178,  213. 


Rates-Telephone  323 


XL  ZONE  SYSTEM  RATES. 

Five-cent  zones. 

24.  The  so-called  5-cent  zone  system  of  suburban  and  interurban 
rates  in  use  on  many  interurban  electric  railways  is  unscientific  and 
inequitable  because  of  the  unequal  zone  distances  used,  the  concessions 
made  to  favored  localities  and  favored  classes  of  passengers  at  the  expense 
of  other  localities  and  other  classes  of  passengers  and  the  consequent 
shifting  of  costs,  irk  the  form  of  excessive  rates,  onto  patrons  in  the  localities 
or  classes  discriminated  against.  In  re  Milw.  Suburban  So  Interurban 
Ry.  Rates,  1914,  13  R.  G.  475,  482-484. 

Single-fare  zones. 

25.  The  question  of  reasonableness  in  establishing  a  certain  boundary 
line  for  single  fares  is  one  which  must  be  reviewed  on  its  merits  alone, 
and  can  be  resolved  only  after  a  careful  consideration  of  the  many  factors 
therein  involved.  Pollworth  Co.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  392,  399. 

26.  Concerning  the  question  of  zone  system  rates  the  conclusion  has 
been  reached  that,  for  a  city  and  its  suburbs  which  does  not  cover  a  greater 
area  than  Milwaukee  and  in  which  the  population  and  industries  are 
distributed  as  in  this  city,  the  best  system  of  rates,  for  the  present  at 
least,  is  probably  a  system  under  which  there  is  but  one  fare  zone  for  an 
area  varying  from  about  four  to  five  miles  from  the  business  center  of 
the  city,  and  under  which  only  one  fare,  based  on  the  average  cost,  is 
charged  within  this  zone.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &,  L.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  G.  1. 

RATES— TELEPHONE. 

Deposits  to  insure  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations,  21-26. 
Discounts  for  prompt  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

14-19. 
Discrimination  in  telephone  rates,  see  Discrimination,  86-100. 
Penalties  for  delinquent  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

14-18,  20. 


I.  ALTERNATIVE  RATES. 

II.  AUTOMOPHONES. 

ill.  BILLING. 

IV.  BUSINESS  AND  RESIDENCE  RATES. 

V.  CLASSIFICATION  OF  SUBSCRIBERS. 

VI.  COMBINATION  BUSINESS  AND  RESIDENCE  RATES. 

VII.  CONCESSIONS  IN  RATES. 

VIII.  CONNECTION  CHARGES. 

IX.  CONTRACT    RATES. 

X.  CONTRACTS. 

XI.  DESK  TELEPHONES. 

XII.  EQUIPMENT  RENTAL. 

XIIL  EXCESS  RADIUS  CHARGE. 

XIV.  EXCHANGE  RADIUS. 


324 


Rates-  Telephone 


XV.  EXTENSION  BELLS. 

XVI.  EXTENSION  TELEPHONES. 

XVII.  EXTRA  LISTING. 

XVIII.  FREE  OR  REDUCED  RATE  SERVICE. 

XIX.  FREE  TOLL  SERVICE. 

XX.  HARMONIC  RINGING  BELLS. 

XXI.  JOINT  USER  RATES. 

XXII.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

XXIII.  MEASURED  RATE. 

XXIV.  NON-SUBSCRIBER  CHARGES. 
XXV.  "OTHER  LINE"  CHARGES. 

XXVI.  PARTY  LINE  RATES.  • 

XXVII.  PHYSICAL  CONNECTION. 

XXVIII.  PROTECTED  WIRES. 

XXIX.  REASONABLENESS     OF    ADVANCE     IN    RATES    IN    PAR- 
TICULAR CASES. 

XXX.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS    CONSIDERED 

IN  DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

XXXI.  REASONABLENESS    OF   RATES    IN    PARTICULAR    CASES. 

XXXII.  RECEIVING  LINES. 

XXXIII.  RECONNECTION  CHARGES. 

XXXIV.  REMOVAL  CHARGES. 
XXXV.  SHORT  TIME  RATES. 

XXXVI.  SILENT  RINGING  TELEPHONES. 

XXXVII.  SPECIAL  CONTRACT  RATES. 

XXXVIII.  SWITCHING  RATES. 

XXXIX.  TOLL  DROPS. 

XL.  TOLL  OR  LONG  DISTANCE  CONNECTION  RATES. 

XLI.  TOLL  RATES. 

XLII.  TOLL  RATES,  OPTIONAL. 


I.  ALTERNATIVE  RATES. 


See  post,  77. 


II.  AUTOMOPHONES. 


Rates  for, 

1.  Rates  for  automophones  established.  No  extra  charge  to  be 
made  for  installation.  In  re  Appl.  Troy  Sc  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  157. 


III.  BILLING. 

Ownership  of  premises  immateriaL 

2.  Application  for  authority  to  treat  patrons  who  have  two  phones 
installed,  not  on  the  same  pair  in  cable,  as  two  separate  parties,  that  is, 
to  render  bills  for  each  installation  as  a  separate  patron,  regardless  of  the 
fact  that  the  same  person  pays  for  service  of  such  phones.  This  seems  to 
be  a  reasonable  rule.  There  appears  to  be  no  more  reason  why  a  whole- 
sale rate  should  be  given  to  patrons  with  more  than  one  phone,  than 
there  would  be  to  consider  the  amount  of  water  used  in  two  separate 
residences,  owned  by  the  same  party,  as  a  single  quantity  in  fixing  the 
charge.     In  re  Appl.  Evansville  Tel.  Exch.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  639,  645. 


Rates-Telephone. — Combination  business  and  residence    325 


IV.  BUSINESS  AND  RESIDENCE  RATES. 

Rates  for  premises  occupied  by  business  and  residence. 

3.  Where  the  place  of  business  and  the  residence  of  a  subscriber  are 
in  the  same  premises  and  no  telephone  is  installed  in  the  place  of  business, 
the  business  rate  should  be  charged  for  the  telephone  installed  in  the 
residence.  In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C,  521, 
544;  In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  465,  475. 

V.  CLASSIFICATION  OF  SUBSCRIBERS. 

Classification  permissible. 

4.  The  classification  of  telephone  subscribers  into  "residence"  and 
"business"  subscribers,  with  higher  rates  for  the  latter  than  for  the  former, 
is  la\^"ful  and  permissible,  not  only  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  greater 
cost  of  providing  the  business  service,  but  also  because  of  the  coordinate 
principle  that  a  lower  residence  rate  is  necessary  in  order  that  a  sufficiently 
large  number  of  subscribers  may  be  secured  to  make  the  telephone 
valuable  to  business  subscribers.  It  follows  that  an  extension  of  this 
classification  may  be  made  so  as  to  make  special  provision  for  schools, 
hospitals,  churches,  lodges,  Christian  associations  and  similar  bodies 
and  organizations,  provided  that  the  two  principles  of  cost  and  of  service 
to  other  subscribers  are  continually  kept  in  view.  In  re  Free  and  Reduced 
Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  521,  542;  In  re  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C. 
98,  105;  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  57;  In  re  Appl. 
Milton  and  Milton  Jet.  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  542,  546;  In  re  Appl. 
Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  465,  470-471. 

VI.  COMBINATION  BUSINESS  AND  RESIDENCE  RATES. 

Application  of, 

5.  Where  a  business  and  a  residence  phone  are  on  the  same  line,  it 
seems  that  the  two-party  business  and  residence  rates  may  be  applied, 
rather  than  a  special  rate  dealing  with  such  service  as  a  separate  class. 
In  re  Appl.  Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  169,  177;  In  re  Appl. 
Farmers'  Tel.  Exch.  of  Richland  Center,  1912,  9  R.  C.  369,  377;  In  re  Appl. 
People's  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  499,  506. 

Discriminatory  tendency  of. 

6.  The  so-called  combination  business  and  residence  rate  should  not 
be  enforced  because  of  its  discriminatory  tendency.  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  259,  265. 

7.  A  so-called  combined  rate  for  a  business  telephone  and  a  residence 
telephone,  which  is  less  than  the  sum  of  the  regularly  published  residence 
and  business  rates,  is  unlawful.  In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service, 
1908,  2  R.  C.  521,  544;  In  re  Appl.  People's  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  499, 
506. 


326  Rates-Telephone. — Concessions  in  rates 

VII.  CONCESSIONS  IN  RATES. 

Reasonableness  of. 

8.  Concessions  in  telephone  rates  can  often  reasonably  be  made  to 
certain  kinds  of  subscribers  because  of  the  value  of  connections  therewith 
to  other  subscribers.    Olson  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  440,  450. 

%  VIII.  CONNECTION  .CHARGES. 

Reasonableness  of. 

9.  Connection  charges  for  subscribers  not  having  direct  connection 
with  long  distance  lines  held  unreasonable.  Connor  et  al.  v.  Marsh  et  al., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  589. 

IX.  CONTRACT  RATES. 

Status  of. 

10.  The  question  was  raised  as  to  whether  a  telephone  company  is 
obliged  to  continue  in  force  a  contract,  indefinite  in  term,  wherein  the 
rates  for  service  are  less  than  the  schedule  of  rates  established  by  order  of 
the  Commission.  Held:  That  sec.  1797m-91,  ch.  499,  laws  of  1907, 
applies  to  valid  existing  contracts  providing  for  the  rendering  of  services 
for  a  fixed  period;  that  it  does  not  apply  to  contracts  amounting  to  in- 
definite subscription  agreements  which  may  be  terminated  by  either  party 
on  suflficient  notice.  In  re  Constr.  of  sec.  1797 m-91,  ch.  499,  Laws  1907, 
1907,  2  R.  C.  113. 

11.  Where  special  rates  have  been  in  effect  under  individual  valid 
contracts,  such  rates  cease  to  be  in  effect  with  the  termination  of  the  con- 
tract, and  the  regular  schedule  rates  should  be  collected  after  the  termina- 
tion of  such  contract.  Where  such  individual  contracts  are  terminable 
at  the  will  of  the  company,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  company  to  terminate 
them  straightway  and  to  establish,  in  place  of  the  special  rates  therein 
provided,  the  regular  published  schedule  of  rates.  Where  one  class  of 
service  is  lawfully  superseded  by  another  class  of  service,  it  is  lawful  to 
collect  that  rate  which  is  the  regular  published  schedule  rate  for  the  class 
of  service  now  given.  In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  521,  545. 

X.  CONTRACTS. 

Yearly  contracts. 

12.  Signing  of  yearly  contract  required.  In  re  Appl.  West  Menasha 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  224. 

XI.  DESK  TELEPHONES. 

Installation  of. 

13.  Charge  established  for  changing  from  wall  to  desk  telephone  or 
vice  versa.    In  re  Appl.  Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  169. 


Rates-Telephone. — Extension  telephones 327 

XII.  EQUIPMENT  RENTAL. 

Rental  paid  by  utility. 

14.  Rental  to  be  paid  to  subscribers  for  use  of  equipment  owned  by 
them.  Knapp  et  al.  v.  Matfeson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  180;  In  re  Appl. 
Rockland  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  402;  In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Miit.  Tel. 
Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  666;  In  re  Appl.  Mosinee  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  709. 

XIII.  EXCESS  RADIUS  CHARGE. 

Establishment  of. 

15.  Extra  charge  to  subscribers  located  outside  regular  exchange 
limits  established.  In  re  Appl.  Ozaukee-Washington  Co.  Tel.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  428;  In  re  Appl.  Tomahawk  Lt.  Tel.  Sc  Impr.  Co.,  1913, 13  R.  C.  340. 

XIV.  EXCHANGE  RADIUS. 

Determination  of. 

16.  Ordinarily  it  would  probably  be  true  that  a  city  should  be  con- 
sidered as  a  unit  for  purposes  of  telephone  service,  but  in  the  present 
case  the  conditions  appear  to  be  so  exceptional  as  to  justify  some  departure 
from  this  policy.  The  city  limits  seem  to  be  very  much  out  of  proportion 
to  the  population  of  the  city  and  to  the  area  which  is  really  built  up.  Be- 
cause the  city  limits  happen  to  be  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  size  of  the 
city  itself  it  hardly  seems  reasonable  to  require  the  telephone  utility  to 
serve  all  patrons  within  those  limits  if  such  patrons  are  not  really  city 
subscribers  in  a  practical  sense.  In  re  Appl.  Tomahawk  Lt.  Tel.  &  Impr. 
Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  340,  342-343.  v 

XV.  EXTENSION  BELLS. 

Rates  for. 

17.  Rates  for  extension  bells  established.  In  re  Appl.  Oostburg  Tel. 
Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  407;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  187; 
In  re  Appl.  Wautoma  &  Mt.  Morris  F.  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  419;  In  re 
Appl.  Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  169;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel. 
Exch.  of  Richland  Center,  1912,  9  R.  C.  369;  In  re  Appl.  Ashland  Home 
Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  489;  In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11 
R.  C.  666;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel  Co.  of  Beetown,  1914,  13  R.  C.  540; 
In  re  Appl  Troy  &  Honey  Creek  Tel  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  157;  In  re  Appl. 
Marion  Sc  Northern  Tel  Co.,  1914.  15  R.  C.  552;  In  re  Appl  Clark  Co. 
Tel  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  822. 

XVI.  EXTENSION  TELEPHONES. 

Rates  for. 

18.  Rates  for  extension  telephones  established.  In  re  Appl.  Oostburg 
Tel  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  407;  In  re  Appl  Interurban  Tel  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C. 
187;  In  re  Appl  Wautoma  &:  Mt.  Morris  F.  Tel  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  419; 


328 Rates-Telephone. — Extension  telephones 

In  re  A p pi.  Milton  &  Milton  Jet.  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  542;  In  re  Platte- 
ville,  Rewey  &  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  608;  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth 
Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  169;  In  re  Appl  Farmers'  Tel.  Exch.  of  Richland 
Center,  1912,  9  R.  C.  369;  In  re  Appl  Brodhead  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
383;  In  re  Appl.  Ashland  Home  Tel  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  489;  In  re  Appl 
Muscoda  Mut.  Tel  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  666;  City  of  Merrill  v.  Wis.  Tel 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  490;  In  re  Appl  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown,  1914, 
13  R.  C.  540;  In  re  Appl.  Troy  &  Honey  Creek  Tel  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
157;  In  re  Appl.  Ripon  United  Tel  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  427;  In  re  Appl 
Marion  <Sc  Northern  Tel  Co.,  19J4,  15  R.  G.  552;  In  re  Appl  Clark  Co. 
Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  822. 

Relation  of  rates  for  business  and  residence  extension  sets. 

19.  On  the  basis  of  the  average  investment,  business  and  residence 
extension  sets  stand  approximately  on  the  same  level,  while  on  the  basis 
of  the  direct  cost  of  operation,  business  sets  doubtless  cost  appreciably 
more.  On  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  service,  business  extension  sets 
should  doubtless  take  a  higher  rate  than  residence  extensions.  For  the 
exchange  under  consideration,  the  relation  of  50  and  25  cts.  per  month  for 
business  and  residence  sets,  respectively,  is  about  correct.  In  re  Appl 
Oostburg  Tel  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  407,  411. 

XVII.  EXTRA  LISTING. 

Charge  for. 

20.  Gharge  for  extra  listing  in  telephone  directory  established.  In  re 
Appl  Clark  Co.  Tel  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  822. 

XVIII.  FREE  OR  REDUGED  RATE  SERVIGE. 

As  basis  for  physical  connection. 

21.  The  question  raised  has  not  been  one  of  public. necessity,  but  of 
the  public  necessity  for  free  service,  and  in  this  case  the  Commission  is 
unable  to  rule  in  favor  of  a  physical  connection  under  these  conditions. 
Farmers'  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Ml  Vernon  Tel  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  286-287. 

Definition  of. 

22.  The  prohibitions  of  the  law  embrace  free  local  service  in  public 
pay  stations,  which  it  has  been,  apparently,  customary  for  companies  to 
give  in  a  number  of  places  in  this  state.  It  also  includes  free  exchange  of 
toll  service  for  a  part  only  of  the  subscribers  of  a  telephone  company, 
similarly  situated,  and  not  for  all  of  the  subscribers.  It  naturally  follows 
that  it  includes  all  free  and  reduced  rate  service  naw  given  to  public. offices 
and  officers  in  the  various  municipalities,  whether  expressly  provided  for 
in  the  franchise  or  not.  It  has  been  determined  that  a  municipality  has 
no  power  to  grant  a  franchise  to  a  telephone  company.  An  ordinance 
attempting  to  grant  such  a  franchise  is  ineffectual  and  void.  State  v.  Mil- 
waukee Independent  Telephone  Co.,  114,  N.  W.  108;  Wisconsin  Telephone 
Company  v.  Milwaukee,  126  Wis.  1;  State  v.  Telephone  Co.,  Ill  Wis.  23. 
Also  coupon  books,  when  sold  below  the  regular  public  schedule  rates. 


. Rates-Telephone. — Free  toll  service 329 

It  does  not,  however,  prohibit  the  giving  of  free  service  to  such  employes 
of  a  telephone  company  whom  the  management  of  the  company  must 
reach  in  order  to  provide  adequate  service  to  the  public.  The  reduced  rate 
service,  which  is  prohibited,  is  service  of  any  kind  furnished  at  lower  rates 
than  the  regular  published  schedule  for  that  class  of  service.  In  re  Free 
or  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  G.  521,  541-542. 

Investigation  of  by  Commission. 

23.  Investigation,  on  motion  of  the  Commission,  of  free  and  reduced 
rate  telephone  service  in  Wisconsin.  An  order  is  made  requiring  telephone 
companies  to  re-adjust  their  rates,  charges,  rules  and  regulations  in  accord- 
ance with  the  interpretation  of  the  law  suggested  by  the  Commission  in  a 
series  of  findings  applicable  to  the  service  under  consideration.  In  re 
Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  521. 

Lower  rates  to  stockliolders. 

24.  As  the  Public  Utilities  Law  requires  that  all  customers  be  treated 
alike,  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  lower  rate  to  stockholders  than  to  the 
others.  The  only  way  in  which  they  can  be  reimbursed  is  through  divi- 
dends declared  after  allowance  has  been  made  for  depreciation.  Knapp  et 
al.  V.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  180,  192;  In  re  Appl.  Rockland  Tel. 
Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  402,  408;  In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  666,  683;  In  re  Appl.  Beef  River  Valley  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C. 
126. 

Prohibited  by  law. 

25.  All  free  and  reduced  rate  telephone  service  is  absolutely  prohibited 
by  the  Public  Utilities  Law.  (Sec.  1797m-89.)  In  re  Free  or  Reduced  Rate 
Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  521,  541. 

Rebate  for  equipment  or  services. 

26.  To  allow  a  rebate  for  equipment  or  services  furnished  by  subscrib- 
ers is  unlawful.  It  is  permissible,  however,  for  the  utility  to  pay  its 
customers  a  rental  for  instruments  supplied  by  them.  In  re  Badger  Tel. 
Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  98,  112;  Knapp  et  al.  v.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C. 
180,  189. 

XIX.  FREE  TOLL  SERVICE. 

* 

Allowed  for  payment  for  regular  service  in  advance. 

27.  Certain  amount  of  free  toll  service  to  be  allowed  to  subscribers 
paying  regular  rentals  in  advance.  In  re  Invest.  Rates  and  Regulations 
of  Eagle  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  397. 

Legality  of. 

28.  It  is  lawful  for  companies  to  afford  free  toll  service  to  their 
respective  subscribers,  provided  the  same  is  given  to  all  alike,  without 
discrimination.  In  such  cases  the  free  toll  service  may  be  regarded  as  a 
part  of  the  service  which  each  company  is  providing  for  its  subscribers. 
In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  521,  545;  In  re 
Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  666,  678. 


330 Rates-Telephone. — Free  toll  service 

29.  Although  it  is  permissible  for  a  telephone  utility  to  furnish 
exchange  service  free  of  charge,  there  is  no  obligation  that  the  utility 
shall  do  so.     In  re  Appl.  People's  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  499,  503. 

XX.  HARMONIC  RINGING  TELEPHONES. 

Rates  for. 

30.  Rates  for  harmonic  ringing  telephones  established.  No  extra 
charge  for  installation.  In  re  Appl.  Troy  <Sc  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  157. 

XXI.  JOINT  USER  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

31.  Joint  user  rates  established.  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  C.  259;  In  re  Appl.  Clark  Co.  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  822. 

XXII.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

Cost  of  service. 

32.  One  of  the  important  elements  in  estiablishing  a  rate,  as  has 
repeatedly  been  held  by  this  Commission,  is  the  cost  of  performing  the 
service.  Tighe  et  al.  v.  Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  117,  137;  Payne  et 
al.u.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  58;  Co7?no/-  et  al.  v.  Marsh  et  al.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  589,  601-602. 

33.  Cost  of  service  is  never  the  sole  consideration  in  determining  the 
reasonableness  of  a  charge.  It  is  one  of  the  primary  considerations,  but 
there  are  other  considerations  often  as  vital  in  reaching  a  conclusion. 
McGowan  v.  Rock  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  15  R.  C.  378,  380. 

Development  of  plant  to  its  full  capacity. 

y  34.  It  appears  probable  that  the  plan  of  telephone  rate  making  now 
in  vogue  was  conceived  and  developed  in  the  effort  to  solve  the  very 
problem  which  we  are  now  considering,  i.  e.,  the  development  of  the 
plant  to  its  full  capacity.  The  favor  shown  to  residence  subscribers  may 
have  had  its  origin  in  a  plan  of  calculated  discrimination,  attempted  to 
be  justified  on  the  grounds  of  value  to  the  consumer.  In  that  light, 
this  disparity  between  rates  is  not  necessarily  an  unjust  discrimination. 
Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  57. 

Traffic  conditions. 

35.  A  factor  to  be  considered  in  the  forming  of  an  equitable  rate 
schedule  is  the  relation  between  the  rates  to  be  paid  by  rural  subscribers 
connected  to  loaded  lines  running  between  two  exchanges  when  there  is  a 
trunk  line  between  those  exchanges  and  the  rate  for  the  same  class  of 
subscribers  when  there  is  no  'trunk  line  between  the  exchanges.  In  re 
Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown,  1914,  13  R.  C.  540,  583. 

36.  Traffic  conditions  were  determined  as  closely  as  possible  and  the 
annual  cost  to  each  company  of  the  service  in  question  was  computed. 
In  re  Appl.  Trego  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  499,  500-501. 


Rates-Telephone. — Party  line  rates  331 


XXIII.     MEASURED  RATES. 

Nature  of. 

37.  The  rate  which  appears  best  calculated  to  reflect  the  cost  of 
service  has  been  aptly  termed,  in  its  limited  application  to  the  telephone 
business,  the  "measured"  rate.  In  its  correct  form  this  rate  is  made  up 
of  an  installation  charge,  which  should  cover  the  cost  of  maintaining 
the  station  permanently,  upon  which  is  imposed  a  charge  for  the  service 
actually  rendered.     Payne  ei  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  58. 

XXIV.  NONSUBSCRIBER  CHARGES. 

Establishment  of. 

38.  Nonsubscriber  charges  established.  In  re  Appl.  Midway  Tel. 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  586;  In  re  Appl.  Oostburg  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  407; 
In  re  Appl.  Ozaukee-Washington  County  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  428; 
In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  666;  In  re  Appl.  Troy 
&  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  157;  In  re  Appl.  Clark  County  Tel 
Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  822. ' 

Legality  of. 

39.  The  question  of  a  charge  to  nonsubscribers  is  not  directly  involved 
in  the  present  case.  Such  a  charge  has  been  held  legal  in  the  decision. 
In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Telephone  Service,  1908,  2  R.  G.  521,  544; 
(Finding  4.)  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.  Crawford  Co.  F.  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  al., 
1912,  11  R.  G.  32,  36. 

Reasonableness  of. 

40.  The  charge  of  10  cts.  per  five  minute  message  made  to  nonsub- 
scribers for  the  use  of  subscribers'  telephones  does  not  appear  unreason- 
able, in  that  the  difficulty  experienced  by  the  telephone  company  in 
collecting  charges  of  this  kind  in  a  large  measure  offsets  the  possib'le 
profits  that  might  be  secured.  In  fairness  to  the  regular  subscribers  the 
rate  charged  to  nonsubscribers  should  be  high  enough  to  prevent  the  cost 
of  its  collection  from  falUng  upon  the  regular  subscribers  in  general. 
Dorm  et  al.  v.  Walworth  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  412,  415. 

XXV.  "OTHER  LINE"  GHARGES. 

Establishment  of. 

41.  "Other  line"  charge  established.  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  West  Crawford 
Co.  F.  M.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1913.  12  R.  G.  140. 

XXVI.  PARTY  LINE  RATES. 

Desirability  of. 

42.  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  party  line  service  should  not 
be  offered,  provided  patrons  are  allowed  to  choose  what  class  of  service 
they  shall  have.    The  effect  of  the  introduction  of  such  service,  with  the 


332 Rates-Telephone. — Party  line  rates 

attendant  increase  which  may  be  expected  in  the  number  of  subscribers, 
will  be  to  cut  down  the  interest  and  depreciation  and  some  of  the  other 
expenses  per  phone  installed,  as  the  amount  of  plant  and  equipment 
required  per  phone  will  be  decreased.  In  re  Appl.  Brodhead  Tel.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  C.  383,  386. 

Relation  of. 

43.  Except  to  a  limited  extent  the  differential  between  one  and  two- 
party  line  rates  seems  to  have  less  justification  than  the  difference  between 
business  and  residence  telephone  rates.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  56-57. 

XXVII.  PHYSICAL  CONNECTION. 

Terms  and  conditions  of  joint  use. 

See  Telephone  Utilities,  41. 

XXVIII.  PROTECTED  WIRES. 

Charges  for. 

44.  In  cases  where  the  company  provides  protected  wires  to  meet 
special  conditions,  it  is  lawful  to  collect  a  special  installation  charge  to 
meet  the  additional  expense  incurred.  An  addition  to  the  regular  charge 
for  the  service  should  not  be  imposed  on  account  of  such  protected  wire, 
or  other  special  device,  which  is  properly  chargeable  only  to  the  installa- 
tion.    In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  521,  545. 

XXIX.  REASONABLENESS  OF  ADVANCE  IN  RATES  IN 

PARTICULAR  CASES. 

In  general. 

45.  Application  for  increase  dismissed  due  to  lack  of  accounting 
data  required  by  law.  In  re  Appl.  Troy  &.  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  549;  In  re  'Appl  State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  497. 

46.  Increase  in  rates  deferred  until  accounting  data  of  utility  conform 
to  standards  prescribed  by  Commission.  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth  Tel. 
Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  169;  In  re  Appl.  Platteville,  Rewey  &  Ellenboro  Tel. 
Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  534;  In  re  Appl.  Peoples  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  499; 
In  re  Appl.  Deerfield  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  672. 

47.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  advance  in  rates  in  general 
was  passed  upon  in  the  following  cases:  In  re  Appl.  J.  L.  Ball,  1907, 
2  R.  C.  105;  In  re  Appl.  Brodhead  Tel.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  113;  /n  re  Appl. 
Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  358;  In  re  Rhinelander  Mutual  Tel.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  427;  In  re  Appl.  Peoples  Tel.  Co.  of  Dane  County,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  518;  In  re  Appl.  Portage  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  692;  In  re  Badger 
Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  98;  In  re  Appl.  Lone  Rock  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C. 
412;  In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  420;  In  re  Appl. 
Peoples  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  452;  In  re  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C. 
534;  In  re  Appl.  Cumberland  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  576;  In  re  Appl. 
Midway  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  586;  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 


Rates-Telephone. — Reasonablen.  of  adv.  in  partic.  cases    333 

4  R.  C.  259;  In  re  Appl.  Oostburg  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  407;  In  re  Appl. 
Franksville  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  437;  In  re  Appl.  Badger  Teleg.  &  Tel. 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  300;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  187; 
In  re  Appl.  Eleva  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  211 ;  In  re  Appl.  Wautoma 
&  Mt.  Morris  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  419;  In  re  Appl.  Milton  & 
Milton  Jet.  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  542;  In  re  Appl.  Troy  <k  Honey  Creek 
Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  549;  In  re  Appl.  Brooklyn  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
573;  In  re  Appl.  Evansville  Tel.  Exch.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  606;  In  re  Appl. 
Argyle  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  616;  In  re  Evansville  Tel.  Exch.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  639;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  647;  In  re  Appl. 
Morris  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  426;  In  re  Appl.  Ozaukee-Washington  Tel. 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  428;  In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7 
R.  C.  465;  In  re  Platteville,  Rewey  <Sc  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
608;  In  re  Appl.  People's  Tel.  Co.,.  1911,  8  R.  C.  92;  In  re  Appl.  State 
Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  497;  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth  Tel. 
Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  169;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Exch.  of  Richland 
Center,  1912,  9  R.  G.  369;  In  re  Appl.  Brodhead  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
383;  In  re  Appl.  Ashland  Home  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  489;  In  re  Appl. 
Midway  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  497;  In  re  Appl.  East  Fond  du  Lac  Tel.  Co., 

1912,  11  R.  G.  114;  In  re  Appl.  Random  Lake  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  130; 
In  re  Appl.  Rockland  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  402;  In  re  Appl.  Melville 
Settlement  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  415;  In  re  Appl.  People's  Tel.  Co., 

1913,  11  R.  G.  499;  In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
666;  In  re  Appl.  Viking'  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  697;  In  re  Appl.  Casco  Sc 
Brussels  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  760;  In  re  Appl.  Grant  Co.  Tel.  Co., 

1913,  12  R.  G.  128;  In  re  Appl.  County  Line  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  169; 
In  re  Appl.  Deerfield  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  672;  In  re  Farmers'  Tel.  Co. 
of  Beetown,  1914,  13  R.  G.  540;  In  re  Appl.  Oakfield  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13 
R.  G.  726;  In  re  Appl.  Troy  <k  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  157; 
In  re  Appl.  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  405;  In  re  Appl.  Badger  State 
Tel.  Sc  Teleg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  407;  In  re  Appl.  Ripon  United  Tel.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  427;  In  re  Appl.  Trego  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  499;  In  re 
Appl.  Eleva  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  586;  In  re  Appl.  Coloma  Tel. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  594;  In  re  Appl.  Prescott  Tel.  Exchange,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
701;  In  re  Appl.  Mosinee  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  709;  In  re  Appl.  Mar- 
quette &  Adams  Co.  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 14  R.  G.  750;  In  re  Appl.  Cascade  Tel.Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  808;  In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Pt.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  70; 
In  re  Appl.  Glidden  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  180;  In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Pt. 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  182;  In  re  Appl.  Norwalk  Independent  Tel.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  222;  In  re  Appl:  New  Lisbon  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
280;  In  re  Invest.  Rates  and  Regulations  of  Eagle  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
397;  In  re  Appl.  Marion  &  Northern  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  552;  In  re 
Appl.  Clark  County  Tel.  Co.  to  Increase  Rates,  1915,  15  R.  G.  822. 

Advances  to  eliminate  discrimination. 

48.  Increase  in  rates  to  certain  subscribers  authorized  in  order  to 
eliminate  unjust  discrimination.  In  re  Appl.  Tomah  El.  Sc  Tel.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  G.  296;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  546; 
In  re  Appl.  Beef  River  Valley  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  126;  /n  re  Appl. 
West  Menasha  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  224. 


334    Rates-Telephone. — Reasonahlen.  of  adv.  in  partlc.  cases 

Excess  radius  charge,  establishment  of. 

49,  Company  authorized  to  apply  excess  radius  charge.  In  re  AppL 
Tomahawk  Lt.  Tel  &  Impr.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  340. 

Improvement  of  service. 

•  50.  Advance  in  rates  on  basis  of  improved  service.  In  re  Appl. 
Eastern  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  212;  In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Ft.  Tel.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  C.  285;  King  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  517;  In  re 
Appl.  Platteville,  Rewey  d:  Ellenhoro  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  534. 

XXX.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS  CONSIDERED 
IN  DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

Cost  of  service. 

51.  Cost  of  service  is  the  best  test  of  the  reasonableness  of  telephone 
rates,  provided  it  is  commercially  feasible  and  otherwise  equitable. 
Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  6.  1,  58;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban 
Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  647,  652;  In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee- Sussex  Tel.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  465,  472;  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  C. 
169,  111;  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  T.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  140,  143. 

52.  Satisfaction  can  probably  not  be  obtained  with  a  complete  or 
partial  schedule  of  telephone  rates  based  primarily  on  the  cost  of  service, 
unless  the  actual  difference  in  cost  can  be  demonstrated.  Olson  et  al.  u. 
Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  440,  450. 

Average  or  normal  costs. 

53.  The  widely  varying  expenses  for  the  years  in  question  show  how 
unsafe  it  is  to  judge  of  the  fairness  of  a  rate  by  examination  of  the  expenses 
for  a  single  year.     In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  647,  652. 

Financial  conditions.  ^ 

54.  At  the  time  of  the  hearing,  the  representatives  of  the  company 
presented  an  argument  setting  forth  the  financial  condition  of  the  utility 
and  giving  in  some  detail  the  reasons  for  asking  for  increased  earnings. 
Although  it  is  not  considered  necessary  to  review  in  detail  the  argument 
of  the  company,  consideration  must  be  given  to  the  financial  condition 
in  determining  what  are  reasonable  rates.  In  re  Appl.  Clark  County 
Tel.  Co.  to  Increase  Rates,  1915,  15  R.  C.  822,  826. 

Going  value. 

55.  Every  effort  honestly  put  forth,  every  dollar  properly  expended, 
and  every  obligation  legitimately  incurred  in  the  establishment  of  an 
efficient  public  utility  business,  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
making  of  rates  for  such  business.  Collectively  the  elements  just  referred 
to  may  be  designated  by  the  term  going  value,  and  in  this  sense  there  can 
be  no  question  regarding  the  propriety  and  justice  of  admitting  going  value 
as  a  consideration  in  the  determination  of  rates.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.*  C.  1,  61. 


Rates-Telephone. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases    335 

Local  conditions. 

56.  The  reasonableness  of  a  schedule  must  be  determined  with 
reference  to  local  conditions.  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912, 
9  R.  C.  169,  177. 

57.  The  factors  determining  the  reasonableness  of  a  rate  vary 
according  to  the  locality  or  exchange  considered.  A  comparison  of  these 
local  conditions,  with  the  view  of  determining  the  equity  in  a  uniform 
charge  in  different  localities,  is  practically  impossible.  In  re  Appl. 
Argyle  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  616,  617. 

Net  earnings. 

58.  The  reasonableness  of  the  rates  that  a  public  service  corporation 
may  charge  the  public  is  determined,  in  a  great  measure,  by  the  net 
earnings  left  to  the  stockholders  after  deducting  from  the  total  operating 
revenues  the  expense  of  operation  and  maintenance,  amount  of  annual 
depreciation  of  the  plant  and  all  other  proper  charges.  Berend  u.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  150,  155;  Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
370,  375;  Connor  et  al.  v.  Marsh  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  589,  600;  In  re  Appl. 
Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  647,  649;  Knapp  et  al.  v.  Matteson  Tel. 
Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  180,  187;  In  re  Appl.  Mosinee  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
709,  710-712. 

Quality  of  service. 

59.  An  increase  in  rates  is  necessary  if  the  city  of  Ripon  is  to  be  given 
the  advantage  of  the  improved  service  proposed  by  the  utility.  In  re 
Appl.  Ripon  United  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  427,  430. 

Quantity  of  service. 

60.  No  reasonable  objection  can  be  taken  to  a  schedule  of  exchange 
telephone  charges  based  upon  the  actual  quantity  of  the  service  rendered. 
Olson  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  440,  450. 

Rental  for  equipment. 

61.  The  rates  should  be  sufTiciently  high  to  permit  the  utility  to  pay 
a  rental  for  equipment  used  but  not  owned  by  it.  Knapp  et  al.  v.  Matteson 
Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  180,  189-190. 

XXXI.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES  IN  PARTIGULAR  GASES. 

Bridged  telephone  service. 

62.  Gomplaint  that  the  Wis.  Tel.  Go.  charges  single-party  rates  for 
the  two-party  line  service  for  one  subscriber  which  it  formerly  furnished 
by  bridging  at  the  central  ofTice.  Held:  That  the  existing  classification 
of  service  is  not  discriminatory;  that  when  two  separate  telephone  circuits 
are  bridged  at  the  central  office,  they  should  be  considered  as  two  separate 
units,  and  that,  if  a  patron's  office  and  home  are  so  located  that  it  is 
feasible  to  connect  them  on  a  single  two-party  circuit,  such  action  on  the 
part  of  the  company  should  not  be  regarded  as  discrimination,  provided 
other  subscribers  similarly  situated  with  reference  to  the  distributing 
points  of  the  cable  distributing  system  are  furnished  the  same  service 


336    Rates-Telephone. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases 

upon  request.  However,  the  company  should  take  \'igorous  steps  to 
prevent  the  repetition  of  the  practice  apparently  indulged  in  by  the  local 
office  in  the  present  case,  of  soliciting  patronage  by  making  representa- 
tions contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  written  contracts  for  service. 
In  re  Invest.  Bridged  Tel.  Service  at  Princeton^  1914,  15  R.  C.  475. 

Discriminatory  rates. 

63.  Investigation  of  alleged  unjustly  discriminatory  rates.  National 
Travelers^  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  678;  Gross  et  al.  v. 
Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  432;  Juneau  El.  Co.  v.  New  Lisbon  Tel.  Co., 
1911,  8  R.  C.  399;  Johnson  et  al.  v.  Lodi  Tel.  Exch.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  713; 
Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v.  West.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  180;  Dorm 
et  al.  V.  Walworth  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  412. 

Equipment  rental. 

64.  Equipment  rental  charged  by  utility  held  unlawful.  Knapp  et  al. 
V.  Matteston  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  180,  190,  193-194. 

Excessive  rates. 

65.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  rates.  Tighe  et  al.  v.  Clinton 
Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  117;  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1; 
Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  370;  Columbus  Adv.  Assn.  v. 
Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  414;  Hoffman  et  al.  v.  Wausau  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  480;.  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  T.  Co.  et  al., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  140;  City  of  Merrill  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  490; 
Arena  &  Ridg^y  T.  Co.  v.  Troy  Sc  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
763;  15  R.  G.  315;  Coady  et  al.  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  831. 

XXXII.  REGEIVING  LINES. 

Rate  for. 

66.  Receiving  lines  established.  City  of  Merrill  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  490. 

XXXIII.  REGONNEGTION  GHARGES. 

Establishment  of. 

67.  The  company  may  adopt  a  rule  providing  for  a  charge  of  $2.00  for 
reconnecting  a  telephone  for  the  same  subscriber  upon  the  same  premises 
within  one  year  after  service  has  been  discontinued.  In  re  Invest.  Rates 
and  Regulations  of  Eagle  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  397,  402. 

XXXIV.  REMOVAL  GHARGES. 

Establishment  of. 

68.  Gharges  established  for  removing  telephone  from  one  location 
to  another.  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  546;  In  re 
Appl.  Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  169;  In  re  Appl.  West  Menasha 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  224;  In  re  Appl.  Clark  County  Tel.  Co.,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  822. 


Rates-Telephone. — Switching  rates  337 

Reasonableness  of. 

69.  A  special  fee  may  be  cljarged  for  removing  telephones  from  one 
address  to  another  after  the  first  installation.  The  amount  of  this  fee 
should  be  as  nearly  as  possible  the  actual  cost  of  performing  the  work. 
In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  G.  521,  545. 


XXXV.  SHORT  TIME  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

70.  Rates  for  short  time  or  temporary  service  established.  In  re 
Appl.  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  465;  In  re  Appl.  Muscoda 
Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  666;  In  re  Appl  Clark  Co.  Tel.  Co.,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  822. 

Reasonableness  of. 

71.  Telephones  installed  or  used  for  short  periods  of  time,  such  as 
telephones  in  summer  cottages,  temporary  business  places,  etc.,  may 
justly  be  charged  a  higher  rate  than  the  proportional  part  of  the  regular 
annual  rate  for  the  respective  classes  of  service.  In  re  Free  and  Reduced 
Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  G.  521,  545. 

XXXVI.  SILENT  RINGING  TELEPHONES. 

Rates  for. 

72.  Rates  established  for  silent  ringing  telephones.  No  charge  for 
installation.  In  re  Appl.  Troy  Sc  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
157. 

XXXVII.  SPEGIAL  GONTRAGT  RATES. 

Status  of. 

See  GoNTRACT  of  Shipments. 

XXXVIII.  SWITGHING  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

73.  Rates  for  switching  service  established.  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth 
Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  169;  In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Pt.  Tel.  Co.,  1912, 
9  R.  G.  285;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers  Tel.  Exch.  of  Richland  Center,  1912, 
9  R.  G.  369;  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.  Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  Tel.  Co.  et  at.,  1912, 
11  R.  G.  32;  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  W.  Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  Tel.  Co.  et  al., 
1912,  11  R.  G.  42;  In  re  Appl.  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  666; 
Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  West.  Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
140;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown,  1914,  13  R.  G.  540;  Arena 
&  Ridg'y  Tel:  Co.  v.  Troy  Sc  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
763;  Hawkins  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  655; 
In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Pt.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  70;  Arena  Sc  Ridg'y  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Troy  &  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  315. 


338 Rates-Telephone. — T.0II  drops , 

XXXIX.  TOLL  DROPS. 
Rates  for, 

74.  Rates  for  toll  drops  established.  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth  Tel. 
Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  169. 

XL.  TOLL  OR  LONG  DISTANGE  GONNEGTION  RATES. 

Reasonableness  of. 

75.  Gonnection  charges  for  subscribers  not  having  direct  connection 
with  long  distance  lines  held  unreasonable.  Connor  et  al.  v.  Marsh  et  al., 
1911,  6  R.  G.  589. 

XLI.  TOLL  RATES. 
Establishment  of. 

76.  Rates  for  toll  service  established.  In  re  Appl.  Peoples  Tel.  Co. 
of  Dane  County,  1908,  2  R.  G.  518;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1908, 
2  R.  G.  546;  In  re  Appl.  Peoples  Tel.  Co.  of  Dane  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  452; 
In  re  Appl  Midway  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  586;  In  re  Appl.  Badger  Teleg. 
Sc  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  300;  Johnson  et  al.  v.  Lodi  Tel.  Exch.,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  713;  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  West  Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  Tel.  Co.  et  al., 

1913,  12  R.  G.  140;  In  re  Clinton  Tel.  Co.  and  Bergen  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  249;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown,  1914,  13  R.  G.  540; 
In  re  Appl.  Troy  Sz  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  157;  In  re  Appl. 
Trego  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  499;  Winter  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.  et  al., 

1914,  15  R.  G.  36;  In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Pt.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  70; 
In  re  Appl.  New  Lisbon  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  280;  McGowan  v. 
Rock  Co.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  378;  In  re  Invest,  Eagle  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  397. 

XLII.  TOLL  RATES,  OPTIONAL. 

Establishment  of. 

77.  Toll  rate  schedules  established  providing  for  payment  for  service 
upon  either  a  flat  rate  basis  or  a  message  basis  at  the  option  of  the  sub- 
scribers. In  re  Appl.  Peoples  Tel.  Co.  of  Dane  County,  1908,  2  R.  G.  518; 
In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown,  1914,  13  R.  G.  540;  Johnson  et  al. 
V.  Readfield  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  G.  102;  In  re  Appl  Troy  &  Honey 
Creek  Tel  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  157;  Curtiss  Sc  Withee  Tel  Co.  v.  Owen  Tel 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  419;  Hawkins  Creek  Tel  Co.  et  al  v.  Badger  Tel  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  655;  In  re  Appl  New  Lisbon  Mut.  Tel  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
280;  In  re  Toll  Rates,  Markesan  to  Kingston,  1914,  15  R.  G.  288;  Coady 
et  al  V.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  831. 

RATES— TOLL  BRIDGE. 

MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  GONSIDERED. 

Cost  of  service — Wages  of  management. 

1.  In  view  of  the  investment  in  the  property  and  the  risks  to  which 
it  is  exposed,  the  volume  of  business,  and  also  the  time  required  for 


Rates-Utilitij  339 


management  of  the  affairs  of  the  utility,  provision  should  be  made  for 
the  payment  of  a  salary  to  the  member  of  the  firm  who  is  in  active  charge 
of  the  bridge.     Marcus  et  al.  v.  Postel  Sc  Swingle,  1913,  13  R.  G.  47,  49. 

REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR  CASES. 

Automobile  rates. 

2.  Petitioner  alleges  that  the  respondent  charges  unreasonable  tolls 
for  automobiles  over  its  toll  bridge  at  Sturgeon  Bay.  Held:  Respondent's 
present  tolls  for  automobiles  are  unreasonable.  The  respondent  is 
ordered  to  discontinue  its  present  toll  for  automobiles  and  to  substitute 
therefor  a  toll  of  15  cts.  each  one  way  and  25  cts.  for  each  round  trip. 
City  of  Sturgeon  Bay  v.  Sturgeon  Bay  Bridge  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  727. 

Single  trip  rates. 

3.  The  complainants  allege  that  the  rates  charged  by  the  respondent 
for  the  use  of  its  toll  bridge  over  ihe  Wisconsin  river  at  Muscoda  are 
excessive  and  discriminatory.  Held:  A  slight  reduction  of  revenue  is 
justified.  The  present  rate  schedule,  however,  shows  no  marked  inequity, 
except  that  existing  between  the  charge  for  a  single  trip  for  a  double  team 
or  automobile  and  the  ticket  rates  for  vehicles  making  ten  or  more  trips. 
A  reduction  of  the  single  trip  rate  for  this  class  of  business  is,  therefore, 
the  only  change  which  is  considered  advisable.  Marcus  et  al:  v.  Postel 
&  Swingle,  1913,  13  R.  C.  47. 

RATES— UTILITY. 

Advance  in  rates  without  authority  from  Commission. 

1.  The  action  of  a  telephone  company  in  notifying  its  subscribers  of 
an  advance  in  rates  previous  to  the  granting  of  authority  for  such  an 
advance  by  the  Railroad  Commission,  is  unlawful.  In  re  Oregon  Tel.  Co.^ 
1909,  3  R.  C.  534,  552. 

Charges  to  be  reasonable  and  just. 

2.  The  statutes  provide  that  the  rates  charged  the  consumers,  and 
the  rates  of  return  upon  the  investment,  must  be  reasonable,  but  do  not 
specifically  state  what  the  reasonable  rate  should  be.  They  further 
provide  that  it  is  the  duty  of  this  Commission  to  enforce  these  statutes, 
or  to  determine  the  reasonable  rate  or  rates.  The  decisions  of  the  court 
are  confined  to  the  determination  as  to  whether  the  rates  thus  found  by 
this  Commission  are  reasonable  or  whether  they  violate  constitutional 
rights.  While  neither  the  statutes  nor  the  decisions  are  thus  furnishing 
specific  directions  for  the  guidance  of  the  Commission  in  carrying  out  its 
duties,  they  contain  certain  rules  which,  in  a  general  way,  limit  the  range 
within  which  the  reasonable  rate  should  be  found.  State  Journal  Prig. 
Co.  et  al.  V.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  624-625. 

Reductions  in  rates. 

3.  The  reductions  in  public  utility  rates  may  be  made  without 
express  authority  from  the  Commission  so  long  as  the  same  are  published 


340 


Rates-Utilitij 


as  required  by  law  and  are  not  unjustly  discriminatory.     In  re  Appl. 
Tomah  El  &  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  296,  297. 

System  must  be  treated  as  a  unit  in  making  rates  for  branches  or 
new  extensions  of  the  service. 

4.  In  the  interests  of  both  the  public  and  the  carriers  it  is  usually 
necessary  to  treat  the  system  as  one  unit  and  to  make  the  same  rate  for 
the  same  class  or  kind  of  service,  even  if  there  is  some  difference  in  the  cost 
of  same.  The  fact  that  a  carrier  may  be  entitled  to  reasonable  returns 
upon  its  business  when  taken  as  a  whole,  does  not  necessarily  imply  that 
each  and  every  part  of  the  service  must  be  equally  profitable.  What  is 
true  for  common  carriers  in  this  respect  is  also  true,  in  a  way,  for  other 
public  utilities.  Beloit  Water,  Gas  &  El.  Co.  v.  City  of  Beloit,  1910,  5 
R.  C.  617,  632. 

RATES— WATER. 

Deposits  to  insure  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations,  21-26. 
Discounts  for  prompt  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

14-19. 
Discrimination  in  water  rates,  see  Discrimination,  31-46. 
Penalties  for  delinquent  payment  of  bills,  see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

14-18. 


I.  •   ADDITIONAL  CONSUMERS  ON  SAME  METER. 

II.  CONSTRUCTION  PURPOSES. 

III.  EMERGENCY  OR  "STANDBY"  SERVICE. 

IV.  FIRE  PROTECTION  RATES. 

a.   Private.  b.   Public. 

V.  FLAT  RATES. 

VI.  FOUNTAIN  RATES. 

VII.  FREE  OR  REDUCED  RATE  SERVICE. 

VIII.  HYDRANT  RENTAL. 

IX.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

X.  METER  RATES. 

XI.  METER  RENTAL. 

XII.  MINIMUM  CHARGES. 

XIII.  OUTSIDE  CONSUMERS. 

XIV.  PARTIAL  METERING. 

XV.  PUBLIC  BUILDING  RATES. 

XVI.  REASONABLENESS  OF  ADVANCE  IN  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR. 
CASES. 

XVII.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS  CONSIDERED  IN 
DETERMINING.  REASONABLENESS. 

XVIII.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES   IN    PARTICULAR  CASES 

XIX.  RECONNECTION  CHARGES. 

XX.  REGRESSIVE  RATES. 

XXI.  SERVICE  CHARGES. 

XXII.  SEWER  FLUSHING  RATES. 

XXIII.  SHORT  TIME  SERVICE. 

XXIV.  STREET  SPRINKLING  RATES. 
XXV.  TAPPING  OF  MAINS. 


Rates-Water. — Fire  protection  rates  341 


I.  ADDITIONAL  CONSUMERS  ON  SAME  METER. 

Charges  for. 

1 .  Extra  charges  for  additional  consumers  on  same  meter  established. 
Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  731;  Kirwin  et  al.  v. 
City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  C.  26;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  C.  187;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
628;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479;  Civic  League  et  al.  v. 
Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  661 ;  In  re  Appl.  Neenah  Mun.  W.  Wks., 

1912,  11  R.  C.  119;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Plant,  1912, 

11  R.  C.  197;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236; 
In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Appl. 
Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913,  11  R.  C.  690;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan 

1913,  12  R.  C.  148;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 

12  R.  C.  260;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  C.  532;  In  re  Invest. 
Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1;  Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan, 

1914,  14  R.  C.  634. 

II.  CONSTRUCTION  PURPOSES. 

Rates  for. 

2.  Rates  established  for  water  used  for  construction  purposes. 
In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497;  City  of  Janesville 
V.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628;  Civic  League  et  al.  v.  Beaver 
Dam  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  661;  Rollins  et  al.  v.  Village  of  Montfort, 
1913,  11  R.  C.  278;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Viroqua,  1913,  11  R.  C.  330; 
In  re  Appl.  Cashton  Lt.  Sz  W.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  410;  In  re  Appl. 
Columbus  W.  <k  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan, 
1913,  12  R.  C.  148;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  C.  532;  In  re 
Appl.  Park  Falls  Mun.  W.  Wks.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  284;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo 
Mun.  W.  Sc  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534. 

.  III.  EMERGENCY  OR  "STANDBY"  SERVICE. 

Rates  for. 

3.  Rates  established  for  emergency  or  "standby"  water  service. 
City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236. 

IV.  FIRE  PROTECTION  RATES. 

a.   PRIVATE. 

Inside  fire  protection. 

4.  With  regard  to  inside  fire  protection,  such  as  automatic  sprinkler 
systems,  the  charge  directly  to  the  property  protected  may  be  justified. 
It  is  not  ordinarily  regarded  as  being  the  duty  of  a  city  to  furnish  inside 
fire  protection,  but,  aside  from  any  theories  as  to  the  city's  obligations, 
the  charge  for  such  protection  appears  to  be  in  accord  with  the  cost  of 
service  principle.     The  demand  which  may  be  made  by  aji  automatic 


342 Rates- Water. — Fire  protection  rates 

sprinkler  system  is  entirely  apart  from  either  the  domestic  demand  or 
that  of  the  hydrant  system.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  568. 

5.  Inside  private  fire  protection,  such  as  water  service  to  automatic 
sprinklers,  and  fire  hose  connections  inside  of  buildings  is  usually  more 
quickly  gotten  into  service  when  a  fire  starts  and  is  universally  considered 
as  being  more  efficient  than  the  use  of  ordinary  fire  hydrants  by  the  fire 
department.  It  is  of  value  to  all  concerned,  but  particularly  to  the 
property  owner  served.  That  it  is  of  value  to  others  may,  under  some 
circumstances,  warrant  the  elimination  of  charges  for  such  service,  but 
the  necessary  circumstances  do  not  exist  here.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland 
Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  70. 

a.    PRIVATE. — Continued. 

Privately  owned  hydrants. 

6.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  a  recognized  function  of  a  city  to 
furnish  reasonably  adequate  fire  protection,  it  seems  clear  that,  as  far  as 
the  water  utility  is  concerned,  the  city  should  be  the  only  party  to  pay  for 
hydrant  fire  protection.  The  mere  fact  that  a  city  fails  to  fulfill  its  duty 
of  supplying  adequate  fire  protection  to  buildings  and  structures  within 
its  limits,  does  not  justify  the  water  utility  in  making  a  charge  against  a 
private  concern  because  that  concern  has  installed  hydrants  which  enable 
it  to  secure  adequate  protection.  The  fire  demand  of  the  city  must  be 
taken  as  a  unit,  and  this  can  only  be  done  when  the  city  itself  is  the  only 
party  to  whom  the  utility  sells  water  under  pressure  for  fire  protection. 
In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  567;  City  of 
Beloit  V.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7.  R.  C.  187,  341;  City  of  Janesville 
V.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7.  R.  C.  628,  655;  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tom- 
ahawk, 1911,  8  R.  C.  40,  56-57;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette, 
1911,  8  R.  C.  334,  385;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  C.  532;  In  re 
Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1,  70. 

7.  With  regard  to  private  hydrants,  it  may  be  said  that  there  are  a 
great  many  factors  which  influence  the  proper  charge  for  this  service. 
In  cases  where  the  cities  are  paying  their  full  share  of  the  cost  of  operating 
the  utility,  that  is,  where  the  cities  are  paying  the  full  cost  of  fire  protection, 
there  may  be  very  little  justification  for  any  charge  for  private  hydrants 
based  on  any  cost  analysis.  This,  of  course,  cannot  be  made  as  a  general 
rule,  because  of  differences  of  conditions  in  various  cities.  Where  the 
policy  of  the  city,  however,  is  not  to  bear  the  full  cost  of  fire  protection, 
it  can  hardly  be  expected  that  the  utility  is  to  furnish  private  fire  pro- 
tection free  of  charge,  and  the  rates  which  will  be  authorized  in  this  case 
represent  the  Commission's  view  of  what  will  be  reasonable  rates  for  this 
service  in  Manitowoc.  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Manitowoc  as  El.  Sc  Water 
Utility,  1914,  15  R.  C.  212,  215,  216. 

b.   PUBLIC. 
In  general. 

8.  Fire  protection  is  an  expense  which  should  be  borne  by  the  tax- 
payers for  service  rendered  to  them  as  distinguished  from  service  rendered 
to  general  consumers.  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Oregon,  1913,  11  R.  G.  548, 
550-551;  In  re  Appl.  Kenosha  Mun.  W.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  426,  430. 


__^ Rates-Water. — Fire' protection  rates 343 

9.  The  determination  of  the  proper  charge  to  the  pubUc  for  fire 
service  rests  largely  upon  the  matter  of  investment.  The  amount  of 
water  used  has  practically  no  effect  on  the  final  result,  as  the  quantity 
consumed  for  fire  service  is  practically  negligible.  City  of  Beioit  v.  Beloit 
W.  G.  Sc  EL  Co.,  1911,  7R.  C.  187,  366;  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  W.  Wks., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  669,  682. 

10.  Respondent's  contention  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  property 
in  the  city  is  beyond  the  fire'  protection  limits,  is  not  without  merit. 
When  conditions  are  normal,  it  is  undoubtedly  correct  for  cities  to  bear 
the  cost  of  fire  protection.  However,  in  the  present  case  it  has  seemed 
that  the  manner  in  which  the  fire  protection  cost  should  be  borne  should 
not  be  prescribed  by  the  order.  The  respondent  is  ordered  to  discontinue 
its  present  rates  for  metered  water  and  substitute  therefor  one  of  the 
three  schedules  proposed  according  to  the  amount  it  desires  to  assume 
toward  bearing  the  burden  of  fire  protection.  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown 
W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  669,  682,  683. 

Adjustment  on  extension  of  mains. 

11.  The  additional  charge  for  fire  protection  service  which  arises 
when  extensions  are  laid  and  new  hydrants  installed  thereon  will  depend 
on  such  factors  as  the  cost  of  the  extension,  the  number  of  hydrants 
installed,  the  probable  consumption  of  water  by  the  new  consumers 
reached,  etc.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187, 
336. 

12.  As  the  proposed  extension  is  not  such  that,  if  a  number  were 
made,  the  capacity  of  the  plant  would  have  to  be  increased  in  order  to 
meet  the  demand,  it  would  seem  that  the  rate  for  fire  protection  on  this 
extension  would  not  include  any  of  the  capacity  expenses  of  the  utility, 
as  these  have  already  been  included  in  the  rate  for  existing  fire  protection. 
The  cost  to  the  city,  therefore,  for  fire  protection  on  this  proposed  ex- 
tension, should  be  made  up  of  the  amount  of  interest  and  depreciation 
on  the  extension  itself,  and  the  cost  to  the  utility  of  pumping  whatever 
additional  water  is  required.  Practically  the  only  additional  pumpage, 
aside  from  what  water  may  actually  be  used  in  time  of  fire,  will  be  the 
amount  of  leakage.  Of  course,  there  js  also  an  added  cost  of  keeping 
water  in  the  main,  even  if  none  is  used,  but  this  appears  to  be  very  slight 
and  is  almost  impossible  of  determination.  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville 
W.  Co.,  1911,  7.  R.  C.  628,  696. 

Establishment  of. 

13.  Rates  for  public  fire  protection  established.  City  of  Ripon  v. 
Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  //i  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt. 
&  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555;  Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910, 
6  R.  G.  26;  In  re  Appl  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497; 
City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Wafer  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628;  City  of  Mari- 
nette V.  City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911,  8  R.  G.  334;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of 
Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479;  Civic  League  et  al.  v.  Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  661;  In  re  Appl.  Neenah  Mun.  W.  Wks.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  119;  In  re 
Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  <&  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197;  City  of  Green  Bay 
v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  236;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt. 


344 Rates- Water. — Fire  protection  rates 

Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  690;  In  re  AppL  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  G.  148;  In  re  Appl. 
Fennimore  Mun.  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  194;  In  re  AppL  Ft. 
Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta, 

1913,  12  R.  C.  532;  In  re  Invest.  Green  Bay  Water  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  734; 
In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Cd.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1;  Town  of  Vaughn  v. 
Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  291;  Kittleson  et  at.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  & 
Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485;  Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  634;  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  669; 
In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  721;  In  re  Appl.  Park 
Falls  Mun.  W.  Wks.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  284;  In  re  Appl.  Kenosha  Mun.  W. 
Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  426;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant, 

1914,  15  R.  G.  534. 

b.    PUBLIC. — Continued. 
Influence  of  number  of  hydrants. 

14.  It  is  obvious  that,  other  conditions  remaining  the  same,  the  cost 
of  fire  protection  bears  but  a  very  slight  relation  to  the  number  of  hydrants. 
The  fire  demand,  which,  in  turn,  determines  very  largely  what  investment 
is  required  for  purposes  of  furnishing  fire  protection,  is  not  made  by  the 
hydrants  themselves,  but  by  the  district  to  be  protected,  and  consequently 
the  interest,  depreciation,  taxes  and  capacity  expenses  are  dependent 
upon  the  fire  demand  and  not  upon  the  number  of  fixtures  through 
which  the  demand  may  be  exercised.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497,  565. 

V.  FLAT  RATES. 

Based  on  estimates. 

15.  Flat  rates  for  water,  it  may  safely  be  said,  are  seldorn,  if  ever, 
closely  based  on  a  cost  analysis.  In  the  very  nature  of  things  they 
cannot  so  conform,  since  the  rate  is  an  estimate  on  an  assumed  average. 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  80;  Kirwin  et  al. 
V.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G.  26,  29. 

Extension  of,  undesirable. 

16.  There  can  be  no  justification  for  an  extension  of  the  flat  rate 
plan  when  the  utility  is  financially  able  to  install  meters,  and  when  the 
conditions  under  which  water  is  to  be  used  are  such  that  meters  may  be 
advantageously  placed.  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  G.  628,  671. 

Fixture  basis. 

17.  Flat  rates,  in  order  to  be  justifiable  in  any  measure,  should  be 
based  upon  the  number  and  kind  of  fixtures,  size  of  opening,  or  similar 
basis.     Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G.  26,  29. 

Generally  undesirable. 

18.  It  is  a  well  understood  fact  that  flat  rates  universally  result  in 
excessive  and  wasteful  consumption,  and  in  unjust  discriminations  in 
diverse  forms,  and  in  irritation  and  ill-feeling  among  the  consumers  as 


Rates-Water. — Free  or  reduced  rate  service  345 

to  a  schedule  of  rates,  which  at  best  is  uncertain  and  guess  work.  City  of 
Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  74,  92;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto 
City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  545;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville 
W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  669;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City  W.  Co., 
1911,  8  R.  C.  334,  369;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Oregon,  1913,  11  R.  C.  548, 
551;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  194, 
203;  Dennett  et  at.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  C.  634,  648. 

Influence  of  sewer  connections. 

19.  For  unmetered  consumers  lower  rates  should  be  charged  for 
those  without  sewer  connections,  because  they  do  not  have  so  great  an 
opportunity  to  waste  water.  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  731,  771;  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
291,  304. 

Relative  importance  of  output  costs. 

20.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  output  costs  are  but  a  relatively 
small  part  of  the  total  expense  of  water  works  service,  so  many  large 
items  are  entirely  independent  of  the  amount  of  water  used,  therefore 
the  amounts  of  water  actually  used  by  the  various  flat  rate  takers  indi- 
vidually are  of  less  importance  than  may  seem,  to  some,  to  appear. 
In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1,  69. 

Room  charge. 

21.  As  a  portion  of  a  flat  rate  schedule  a  room  charge  may  have  a 
place,  but  it  is  a  question  whether  such  a  charge  can  generally  be  justified 
on  the  ground  that  the  amount  of  water  used  varies  with  the  number  of 
rooms.     Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  G.  40,  50. 

22.  There  may  be  something  to  be  said  against  a  charge  based  on 
the  number  of  rooms  but  the  number  of  rooms  is  apparently  one  of  the 
elements  which  should  enter  into  a  flat  rate  schedule.  Town  of  Vaughn 
V.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  291,  306. 

VI.  FOUNTAIN  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

23.  Rates  for  public  fountains  established.  City  of  Janesville  v. 
Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  <Sc 
W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  <k  Lt. 
Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194. 

VII.  FREE  OR  REUUGED  RATE  SERVIGE. 

Prohibited. 

24.  The  furnishing  of  free  or  reduced  rate  service  is  prohibited  by 
law.  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  731,  790;  Fitz- 
gerald et  al.  V.  City  of  Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  G.  40;  In  re  Appl.  City  of 
Neenah,  1912,  11  R.  G.  119,  128;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12 
R.  G.  148,  162;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  68; 
Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  W.  Wks.,19U,  14  R.  G.  669,  681. 


346  ,  Rates-Water. — Hydrant  rental 


VIII.  HYDRANT  RENTAL. 

Classes  of  service  reasonably  included. 

25.  No  reason  has  been  advanced  why  the  consumption  of  water  for 
schools,  churches,  the  city  hall,  and  public  library  should  be  paid  for 
through  the  charges  for  hydrant  service.  It  would  appear  that  consump- 
tion of  this  character  should  be  placed  on  a  meter  .basis,  and  water 
used  by  these  consumers  measured  and  paid  for  at  meter  rates.  As  regards 
street  sprinkling,  flushing  sewers,  fire  protection  and  similar  public  uses, 
where  it  is  impossible  to  measure  the  water  used,  the  only  method  of 
payment  feasible  would  be  the  inclusion  of  the  cost  of  these  services  in 
the  hydrant  rental.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
1,  85. 

Establishment  of  in  particular  cases. 

See  ante,  13. 

IX.  MAKING  RATES— ELEMENTS  CONSIDERED. 

Capital,  availability  of. 

26.  Under  normal  conditions  rates  must  be  high  enough  to  leave  an 
adequate  surplus  for  those  who  assume  the  risks  and  responsibilities  that 
are  involved,  and  to  encourage  new  capital  in  entering  such  undertakings. 
Such  rates,  when  warranted  by  conditions,  are  not  only  just,  but  necessary. 
Generally  speaking,  there  is  more  risk  in  new  than  in  older  utilities,  and 
hence  it  also  follows  that  higher  profits  should  be  allowed  for  the  former. 
Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  762. 

Comparative  data. 

27.  Since  the  proper  determination  of  rates  must  be  based  upon  a 
normal  statement  of  expenses  it  is  necessary  to  make  comparisons  of  the 
annual  operating  expenses  through  a  period  of  years  and  determine  the 
normal  amounts.     In  re  Invest,  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1,  54. 

Cost  of  service. 

28.  Rates,  to  be  equitable  and  just,  should  be  based  upon  the  cost 
of  rendering  the  service.  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant, 
1910,  5  R.  C.  555,  560;  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
731,  777;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  8c  EL  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  339; 
Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G. 
704,  767-768. 

29.  While  no  rates  should  be  higher  than  the  value  of  the  service  for 
which  they  are  paid,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  it  would  be  fair  to 
levy  the  same  rates  on  all,  regardless  of  the  cost.  Such  policy,  besides 
being  inequitable,  invariably  tends  to  discourage  large  scale  consumption. 
In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  G.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  163,  174,  175;  City  of 
Beloit  V.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  338-339. 

30.  To  put  a  rate  schedule  into  effect  for  permanent  use,  which  is  so 
low  as  to  hardly  cover  the  output  costs,  or  that  yields  so  little  in  the  way 
of  revenues  as  to  leave  little  or  nothing  for  interest,  depreciation  and  taxes. 


Rates-Water. — Making  rates — elements  considered       347 

would  seem  to  be  out  of  line  with  sound  business  practice,  and  discrimin- 
atory as  against  other  customers.  In  re  Menominee  &  Marinette  Lt. 
&  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  898;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  340. 

Average  or  normal  costs. 

31.  In  figuring  the  total  cost  of  service,  care  must  be  exercised  that  a 
normal  or  average  year-  be  used  as  the  basis.  It  is  further  desirable  that 
the  most  recent  data  should  be  employed.  Dick  et  at.  v.  Madison  Water 
Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  731,  747. 


Economies  in  operation.    -' 

32.  It  is  expected,  and  is  quite  generally  found  to  be  the  fact,  that  in 
combined  plants  the  rates  of  general  expenses  or  management  costs  will 
be  less  than  in  the  case  of  single  utilities  or  plants  operating  a  water,  gas, 
electric,  or  electric  railway  property  alone.  A  combination  of  utilities, 
such  as  this  case  presents,  may  offer  many  opportunities  for  economies 
not  possible  in  a  single  utility.  Where  such  economies  are  made  possible, 
it  would  appear  that  while  the  public  is  entitled  to  some  share  in  such 
benefits  as  may  result  from  such  economies,  at  the  same  time  the  company 
is  entitled  to  a  reward  for  effecting  the  results  described.  City  of  Beloit 
p.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  285. 

Electrolysis,  prevention  of. 

33.  If  the  utility  has  taken  'reasonable  precautions  to  prevent 
electrolytic  damage,  as  it  appears  to  have  done  in  the  present  case,  there 
seems  to  be  no  adequate  reason  for  excluding  from  operating  expenses 
the  cost  of  maintaining  services  if  the  expenses  of  such  maintenance  are 
not  otherwise  abnormal.  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  236,  257. 

Interest  on  city  equity  in  municipally  owned  plants. 

34.  Whether  or  not  the  element  in  city  equity  resulting  from  the 
appreciation  of  plant  value  and  the  reinvestment  of  profits  from  operation 
should  also  be  included  in  the  amount  of  city  equity  upon  which  interest 
is  to  be  earned,  is  largely  a  matter  of  local  policy  and  should  be  decided 
in  the  light  of  local  conditions.  If  the  city  so  desires,  it  appears  that  it 
should  be  allowed  to  earn  on  the  entire  amount  of  city  equity.  In  re 
Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G.  532,  541. 


Interest  and  taxes  (municipal  plants). 

35.  If  such  items  as  interest  and  taxes  are  not  considered  by  municipal 
plants  in  fixing  rates  for  private  consumers,  it  would  seem  that  these 
consumers  would  be  favored  as  against  the  taxpayers.  There  does  not, 
on  the  whole,  appear  to  be  any  equitable  ground  upon  which  such  charges 
can  be  entirely  eliminated  in  any  industry  or  in  connection  with  the  services 
of  any  public  utility.  In  re  Appl.  Madison  City  Water  Wks.,  1909, 
3  R.  G.  299,  320;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  555,  559-560;  Dick  et  at.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
731,  746;  Rollins  et  at.  v.  Village  of  Montfort,  1913,  11  R.  G.  278,  285: 


348        Rates-Water. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

In  re  AppL  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  456-457; 
In  re  AppL  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  C.  148,  153;  In  re  AppL  Ft. 
Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  289;  In  re  AppL  City  of 
Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G.  532,  542;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  EL 
Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534,  540. 

Cost  of  service — Management,  wages  of. 

36.  The  amount  which  should  be  considered  a  reasonable  expense 
for  salaries  must  be  determined  by  an  examination  of  local  conditions 
and  by  comparisons  with  other  plants  which  are  similarly  situated. 
City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  648. 

37.  It  was  argued  by  the  company  in  support  of  the  salaries  paid 
that  the  time  of  the  president  is  worth  $25  per  day.  Without  attempting 
to  determine  at  this  time  wliether  or  not  this  value  is  correct,  it  should 
be  pointed  out  that  the  value  of  their  time  to  the  general  officers  them- 
selves may  be  entirely  different  from  its  value  to  the  utility.  The  value 
of  a  man's  services  and  time  to  himself  would  ordinarily  be  judged  by 
what  he  could  dispose  of  them  for,  but  the  value  to  the  utility  must  be 
judged  by  the  results  obtained.  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  646. 

38.  That  the  services  rendered  by  the  officers  have  a  value  to  the 
operating  utility  can  hardly  be  questioned,  and  it  does  not  appear  that 
for  a  utility,  such  as  respondent  in  this  case,  a  payment  of  $2,500  per  year 
for  salaries  of  general  officers  is  very  far,  if  at  all,  above  a  proper  amount. 
City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  236,  256. 

Managerial  ability. 

39.  In  fixing  rates  for  public  utilities  consideration  should  be  given 
to  extraordinary  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  management  in  extending  the 
use  of  the  services  of  the  plants.  Such  extensions  subserve  the  best 
interests  of  both  the  plants  and  their  customers,  and  when  due  to  initiate 
and  enterprise  on  the  part  of  the  management  an  allowance  should  be 
made  for  it  in  the  way  of  extra  profits.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  725;  In  re  AppL  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  G.  497,  516. 


Output,  capacity  and  consumer  costs. 

40.  A  water  works  system,  when  once  constructed  and  put  in  opera- 
tion, has  a  comparatively  small  portion  of  its  expenses  which  are  propor- 
tional to  the  output,  in  which  regard  it  is  opposite  to  the  cortditions  in 
the  generation  of  electric  energy.  The  greater  part  of  the  water  utility's 
operating  costs  are  independent  of  the  output  or  its  variations  and  depend 
largely  upon  the  capacity  of  the  plant  or  the  investment  represented 
therein.     City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  62. 

41.  The  capacity  expenses  represent  that  portion  of  the  cost  of  the 
service  which  accrues  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  a  utility  is  compelled  to 
have  in  readiness  a  plant,  equipment,  instaUation,  supplies,  and  labor 
to  meet  the  demand  which  may  be  made  upon  it  by  the  consuming  public. 
It  is  that  portion  of  the  cost  which  is  incurred  independently  of  any  ex- 
pense of  actually  furnishing  water.     It  is  rather  the  expense  incurred 


Rates-Water. — Making  rates — elements  considered       349 

by  the  utility  in  holding  itself  in  readiness  to  furnish  water  at  any  time  in 
any  quantity.  The  amount  of  capacity  expense  which  is  charged  against 
any  consumer  is  the  price  that  in  justice  he  should  pay  for  the  right  of 
demanding  service  from  the  utility,  however  great  or  small  that  service 
may  be.     Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison,  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  731,  757. 

42.  It  is  recognized  that  there  are  certain  expenses  incurred  in  the 
operation  of  a  water  utility  which  are  directly  proportional  to  the  number 
of  consumers.  Such  cbsts  as  depreciation  and  interest  on  meters,  cost  of 
reading  meters,  delivering  bills,  repairs  on  meters  and  services,  are  clearly 
included  in  this  class  of  expenses.  These  expenses  go  on  whether  the 
consumer  uses  much  or  httle  water,  or,  in  fact,  whether  he  uses  water 
or  does  not  use  the  service.  It  is  obvious  that  some  form  of  charge  must 
be  made  that  will  guarantee  the  payment  of  these  costs.  Kirwin  et  at.  v. 
City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  C.  26,  41. 

43.  The  cost  of  supplying  water  is  composed  of  three  elements, 
the  consumer,  capacity,  and  output  costs — the  first  two,  however,  some- 
times being  combined  in  utility  accounts — and  it  is  inequitable  to  assess 
the  indirect  expenses  entirely  to  any  one  or  two  of  these  elements.  Each 
element  must  bear  its  proper  share.  Village  of  Sharon  v.  United  Heat, 
Li.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  1,  10. 

44.  The  fixed  or  service  charges  are  probably  too  burdensome  to  a 
large  number  of  small  usiers  and  together  with  the  output  costs  for  water 
used  will  doubtless  make  the  total  expense  for  water  service  seem  out  of 
proportion  to  its  value.  It  is  therefore  essential  that  the  capacity  and 
consumer  expenses  of  metered  service  be  reduced  by  transferring  a  portion 
of  them  to  the  output  expenses.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  1,  66. 

45.  Previous  decisions  of  this  Commission  in  similar  cases  have 
indicated  that  in  making  rates  for  private  service  the  best  treatment  of 
the  private  service  portions  of  the  interest,  taxes  and  depreciation  is, 
usually,  to  divide  their  sum  between  capacity,  output  and  consumer 
costs  in  the  same  proportions  as  the  operating  expenses  are  so  divided. 
In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  61. 

46.  Each  of  the  various  departments  of  the  service  should  bear  its 
proper  burden  of  expense.  The  total  operating  expenses  of  the  plant 
must  be  distributed  between  that  class  which  depends  on  the  output  of 
water  and  varies  with  this  output,  and  that  class  which  is  independent 
of  this  output  and  which  does  not  vary  with  it.  These  expenses  in  turn 
must  be  apportioned  between  the  commercial  and  industrial  service  and 
the  fire  service.  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  Water  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
669,  674. 

Pumpage  lost  and  unaccounted  for. 

47.  In  every  water  works  system  there  is  a  considerable  amount  of 
the  total  pumpage  which  is  lost  and  unaccounted  for,  due  chiefly  to 
unknown  and  unavoidable  leakage.  The  investigation  in  a  number  of 
cases  appear  to  demonstrate  that  a  substantial  fraction  of  the  total 
pumpage  must  be  eliminated  from  consideration  in  determining  the 
unit  output  charge  in  a  rate  schedule.  The  output  expenses  must  be 
assessed  against  the  amount  of  pumpage  which  can  be  reasonably  shown 


350         Rates-Water. — Making  rates — elements  considered 

____  I 

to  be  used  by  the  city  and  its  citizens  and  for  which  collections  may 
reasonably  be  expected.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
1,  59. 

Cost  of  service — Taxes. 

See  also  ante,  35. 

48.  It  is  understood  that  under  the  terms  of  the  original  franchises  the 
utility  was  exempted  from  local  taxation.  The  legality  of  such  an 
exemption  is  a  serious  question.  In  the  future  the  water  plant  in  this 
case  will  doubtless  be  required  to  pay  taxes  and  provision  must  accord- 
ingly be  made  for  that  expense  in  the  rates.  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley 
W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  291,  302. 

Development  and  retention  of  business. 

49.  It  often  happens  that  it  is  better,  both  for  the  plant  and  for  all 
of  its  customers  as  well,  that  large  quantities  of  the  products  should  be 
sold  at  even  less  than  enough  to  yield  the  regular  rate  of  profits  upon  the 
same,  than  that  these  quantities  should  not  be  sold  at  all.  In  re  Appl. 
Manitowoc  G.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  163,  175;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G. 
&  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  339. 

50.  While  the  past  net  earnings  are  unquestionably  less  than  would 
constitute  a  fair  return,  the  making  of  a  new  rate  schedule  which  will 
provide  more  equitable  returns  is  a  matter  for  very  serious  consideration. 
The  greater  the  increase  in  existing  rates  the  greater  will  be  the  tendency 
to  not  only  check  development  of  new  business  but  to  lose  some  of  the 
company's  present  consumers  and  revenue.  There  is,  therefore,  a  practical 
limit  beyond  which  earnings  cannot  possibly  be  made  to  go,  even  though 
this  limit  may  not  provide  a  fair  and  reasonable  rate  of  return  on  the  full 
value.     In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1,  50. 

51.  It  must  be  remembered  that  a  number  of  concerns  which  might 
naturally  be  expected  to  be  large  users  of  water  from  the  utility's  mains 
are  furnishing  their  own  water  supply,  and  any  material  increase  in  the 
rates  must  be  made  with  consideration  given  to  the  possibility  that  some 
of  the  larger  consumers  find  the  rate  prohibitive.  In  re  Appl.  Green 
Bay  Water  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  84,  90. 

52.  As  the  unit  cost  varies  considerably  among  consumers  who  use 
different  quantities  of  water,  it  is  customary  to  make  the  rate  lower  as 
the  quantity  of  water  used  increases.  This  form  of  schedule  is  also 
necessary  to  make  it  economical  for  large  consumers  to  take  water  from 
the  plant  rather  than  to  establish  private  plants  of  their  own.  So  long 
as  such  consumers  pay  enough  to  cover  the  direct  costs  of  serving  them, 
and  something  in  addition  towards  the  expenses  of  the  department  as  a 
whole,  it  is  manifest  that  it  is  to  the  advantage  of  all  consumers  for  the 
plant  to  render  this  service  at  rates  which  will  yield  such  an  amount. 
In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913.  12  R.  G.  ?60,  316-317. 

Future  additions. 

53.  It  does  not  appear  equitable  to  make  present  consumers  con- 
tribute through  the  rates  such  large  amounts  towards  future  additions 
and  towards  retirement  of  present  obligations  as  was  suggested  at  the 


Rates-  Water. — Meter' rates 351 

hearing  in  this  case.  Again,  the  probabiUty  of  a  cycle  of  hard  time 
occurring  later,  as  was  also  suggested  during  the  hearings  in  this  matter, 
should  not  be  made  the  justification  for  saddling  present  consumers  with 
rates  through  which  a  surplus  fund  may  be  built  up  to  carry  the  plant 
over  the  period  of  decreased  revenue.  Dennett  et  at.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan, 
1914,  14  R.  C.  634,  642. 

Methods  of  financing  utility. 

54.  If  it  were  not  for  the  fact  that  the  city  has  no  other  means  avail- 
able of  financing  improvements  in  its  water  plant  except  such  as  are 
dependent  upon  the  earnings  of  the  utility  itself,  it  might  not  be  necessary 
to  authorize  any  increase  in  revenues  at  this  time.  In  re  Appt.  Kenosha 
Man.  W.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  426,  429. 

Value  of  the  service. 

55.  The  question  of  the  value  of  the  service  demands  consideration 
in  any  case  wherein  rates  equitable  to  the  company  may  appear  to  con- 
sumers to  border  on  the  burdensome.  The  consumers  will  naturally  be 
the  ultimate  judges  as  to  the  value  of  the  service  in  cases  where  other 
supplies  are  available  and  between  which  and  the  general  city  system  a 
choice  may  be  made.  There  is  evidence  before  us  that  many  citizens 
already  depend  upon  bottled  spring  water  for  drinking  purposes.  In  re 
Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1,  52. 

X.  METER  RATES. 

In  general. 

56.  Where  conditions  of  building  and  climate  are  such  as  to  admit 
of  easy  and  economical  introduction  of  meters,  and  where  the  utility  is 
financially  able  to  install  meters,  it  does  not  admit  of  argument  that  the 
meter  basis  is  the  correct  basis  on  which  to  sell  water.  This  is  especially 
true  in  cases  where  the  premises  supplied  are  connected  with  sewer, 
cess-pool,  or  drain,  where  the  waste  of  water  may  be  very  great.  In  re 
Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  546. 

57.  Complaint  was  made  informally  that  the  utility  had  violated  its 
rule  giving  a  consumer  dissatisfied  with  the  assessed  rates  the  right  to 
attach  a  meter  and  pay  for  water  at  meter  rates,  provided  the  meter 
were  attached  under  the  direction  and  subject  to  the  inspection  of  the 
company  and  in  accordance  with  the  other  stipulations  set  forth  in  the 
rule.  Held:  As  long  as  this  rule  remains  in  effect,  the  utility  is  bound 
by  its  provisions  and  must  conduct  its  business  in  accordance  therewith. 
City  of  Marinette  v.  City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911,  8  R.  G.  334,  385-386. 

Straight  meter  rates. 

58.  Objection  is  sometimes  offered  to  the  policy  of  supplying  large 
consumers  at  low  rates.  Watertown  furnishes  a  clear  illustration  of  the 
advantages  of  such  a  policy.  There  is  no  question  that  if  four  or  five  of 
the  largest  consumers  should  discontinue  the  use  of  water  from  the  city 
system  the  utility  would  be  unable  to  meet  its  operating  expenses  and  fixed 
charges.     If  water  were  supplied  to  all  users  at  a  uniform  rate  the  very 


352 .   Rates-Water. — Meter  rates 

large  users  would  doubtless  find  it  cheaper  to  furnish  their  own  supplies 
than  to  buy  water  from  the  city.  The  nature  of  the  waterworks  business 
is  such  that  a  few  very  large  users,  supplied  at  what  may  appear  to  be 
very  low  rates,  sometimes  enable  general  users  to  secure  rates  much  more 
advantageous  than  would  otherwise  be  possible.  An  illustration  of  this 
is  the  rate  fixed  by  the  Commission  in  the  Sparta  Case,  12  R.  C.  532- 
546.     Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  Water  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  669,  686. 

XI.  METER  RENTAL. 

Basis  of. 

59.  A  proper  rental  to  be  paid  by  the  city  in  cases  where  consumers 
own  their  meters  should  cover  the  elements  of  costs  of  which  the  city  is 
relieved  by  the  fact  that  meters  are  furnished  by  consumers.  These 
costs  are  the  interest,  depreciation  and  taxes  on  the  meters.  Alter  et  al.  v. 
City  of  Manitowoc,  1914,  14  R.  C.  690,  695. 

Rental  paid  by  utility.  , 

60.  Meter  rental  to  be  paid  to  consumers  owning  their  meters. 
City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628;  Lothrop  v. 
Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12 
R.  C.  532;  Alter  et  al.  v.  City  of  Manitowoc,  1914,  14  R.  G.  690. 

XII.  MINIMUM  CHARGES.   ' 
See  Minimum  Charges. 

XIII.  OUTSIDE  CONSUMERS. 

Rates  for. 

61.  Rates  established  for  consumers  of  water  located  outside  muni- 
cipal limits.  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
260;  In  re  Appl.  Richland  Center  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  590. 

XIV.  PARTIAL  METERING. 

Desirability  of. 

62.  The  Commission  does  not  recommend  complete  metering  in  this 
case,  but  a  gradual  extension  of  the  meter  system  is  undoubtedly  desirable 
and  the  meter  rates  should  be  so  adjusted  that,  with  the  extension  of  the 
meter  system,  the  -rates  will  be  suitable  for  the  changed  conditions,  so 
far  as  it  is  possible  to  secure  this  result.  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  291,  307. 

XV.  PUBLIC  BUILDINGS  RATES. 

Necessity  for  making  charge. 

63.  The  city  should  pay  for  water  used  for  other  than  protective 
purposes  in  the  same  way  as  an  individual  or  a  corporation  would  be  ex- 
pected and  required  to  pay  for  a  similar  use.     There  appears  to  be  no 


Rates-Water.— Reasonableness  of  adv.  in  partic.  cases       353 

reason  why  a  water  supply  company  should  be  required  to  furnish  water 
free  to  public  buildings  and  schools,  and  for  other  public  uses,  and  attempt 
to  make  up  for  this  by  additional  charges  to  private  consumers.  In.  re 
Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  558. 

64.  Public  buildings,  schools  and  churches  should  be  charged  for 
water  on  the  same  basis  as  other  consumers.  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janes- 
ville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  671. 


XVI.  REASONABLENESS  OF  ADVANCE  IN  RATES  IN 

PARTICULAR  CASES. 

In  general. 

65.  The  question  of  reasonableness  of  advances  in  rates  in  general 
was  passed  upon  in  the  following  cases:  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun. 
El:  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Neenah,  1912, 

11  R:  C.  119;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Viroqua,  1913,  11  R.  C.  330;  In  re  Appl. 
Cashton  Mun.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  410;  In  re  Appl.  Village 
of  Clinton,  1913,  11  R.  C.  496;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Oregon,  1913,  11  R.  C. 
548;  In  re  Appl.  New  Glarus  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1913,  11  R.  C.  711;  In  re 
Appl.  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  C.  148;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun. 
W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  194;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913, 

12  R.  C.  532;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1;  In  re 
Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.  1914,  14  R.  C.  721;  In  re  Appl.  Green  Bay 
Water  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  84. 

Adjustment  of  rates. 

66.  Rates  adjusted  to  eliminate  inequalities.  In  re  Appl.  Park 
Falls  Municipal  Water  Wks.,   1914,  15  R.  C.  284. 

Fire  protection. 

67.  Application  for  authority  to  increase  fire  protection  rates. 
In  re  Appl.  Hillsboro  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  85. 

Improvement  of  service, 

68.  Rates  increased  to  provide  for  improved  service.  In  re  Appl. 
Kenosha  Mun.  W.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  426. 

Minimum  charge. 

69.  Application  to  reduce  quantity  of  water  allowed  under  the  mini- 
mum charge,  dismissed.  In  re  Appl.  Madison  City  W.  Wks.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  299. 

70.  Application  of  minimum  charge  authorized.  In  re  AppU 
Oconomowoc  Water  Dept.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  394. 

Pumping  rates. 

71.  Application  for  increase  in  pumping  rates  denied.  In  re  AppL 
Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  397. 

12 


354     Rates-Water. — Reasonableness  of — matters  considered 


XVII.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES— MATTERS  CONSIDERED 
IN  DETERMINING  REASONABLENESS. 

Cost  of  service. 

72.  The  best  and  most  equitable  rates  are  perhaps  those  which  are 
based  on  cost,  and  under  which  each  particular  consumer  contributes  to 
the  revenues  of  the  company  in  proportion  to  the  cost  to  the  plant  of 
serving  them.  Such  rates  can  not  always  be  determined  with  mathe- 
matical accuracy,  although  this  cost  can  usually  be  located  within  certain 
rather  narrow  limits.  In  re  AppL  Madison  City  W.  Wks.,  1909,  3  R.  C. 
299,  313. 

73.  The  most  important  factor  in  determining  the  rate  of  charge  is 
the  cost  of  service.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
187,  256. 

Excessive  capitalization. 

74.  The  fact  that  excessive  amounts  of  securities  may  have  been 
issued  by  public  utilities  and  the  further  fact  that  the  rates  may  have 
been  high  enough  to  yield  interest  and  dividends  on  the  same,  would 
not  justify  the  continuance  of  these  rates  if  they  had  been  found  to  be 
unreasonable  in  other  respects.  Hilletal.  v.Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3 
R.  C.  623,  726. 

Net  earnings. 

75.  The  reasonableness  of  the  rates  that  a  public  service  corporation 
may  charge  the  public  is  determined,  in  a  great  measure,  by  the  net 
earnings  left  to  the  stockholders  after  deducting  from  the  total  operating 
revenues  the  expense  of  operation  and  maintenance,  amount  of  annual 
depreciation  of  the  plant  and  all  other  proper  charges.  Berend  v.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  155;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  Water  Supply 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  691,  692. 

Relation  between  investment  and  growth  of  business. 

76.  In  determining  the  reasonableness  of  rates  careful  inquiries  should 
be  directed  to  determine  the  relation  between  the  investment  line  and  the 
growth  of  business  line  at  the  particular  period  or  year  upon  which  the 
determination  of  the  cost  of  service  and,  therefore,  the  rates  are  to  be 
determined.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  <k  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187, 
289-290. 

Rates  during  experimental  period. 

77.  To  permit  public  utilities  to  charge  relatively  high  rates  during 
the  experimental  period,  is  often  both  necessary  and  in  line  with  good 
policy  in  other  respects.  Nor  is  the  state  estopped  from  reducing  the 
rates  or  from  changing  the  terms  to  a  reasonable  basis  whenever  other 
conditions  warrant  such  action.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  623,  726. 


Rates-Water. — Reasonableness  of  in  particular  cases       355 


XVIII.  REASONABLENESS  OF  RATES  IN  PARTICULAR  GASES. 

Accounting  data. 

78.  fleasonableness  of  rates  not  finally  determined  because  of  lack 
of  accounting  data  required  by  law.  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk, 
1911,  8  R.  C.  40;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479. 

Adjustment  of  rates. 

79.  Investigation  of  application  to  adjust  rates  were  made  in  the 
following  cases:  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
497;  8  R.  G.  388;  In  re  Appl.  People's  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  651; 
In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197; 
In  re  Appl  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449;  In  re  Appl. 
Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913,  11  R.  G.  690;  Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of 
Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634. 

Discriminatory  rates. 

80.  Investigation  of  alleged  unjustly  discriminatory  rates.  Kirwin 
et  al.  V.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G.  26;  408;  Rollins  et  al.  v.  Village 
of  Montfort,  1913,  11  R.  G.  278;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm., 

1913,  12  R.  G.  260;  729;  Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Plant, 

1914,  14  R.  G.  485;  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  669. 

Excessive  rates. 

81.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  or  unreasonable  rates.  City  of 
Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  273;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon 
Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  W.  Wks.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  215;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  Sc  Ltg.  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  G.  302;  Roenitz  et  al.  v.  City  W.  Wks.  Comm.,  Sheboygan,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  434;  City  of  Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G. 
74;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628;  Alter  et  al.  v. 
City  of  Manitowoc,  1912,  10  R.  G.  387;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay 
W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  236;  In  re  Invest.  Green  Bay  Water  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  G.  734;  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  291; 
City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  117;  In  re  Invest. 
Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534. 

Excessive  and  discriminatory  rates. 

82.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  and  unjustly  discriminatory 
rates.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623;  Dick  et  al.  v. 
Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  731;  City  of  Stevens  Pt.  v.  Stevens 
Pt.  Water  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  458;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  G.  187;  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  G.  40; 
City  of  Marinette  v.  City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911,  8  R.  G.  334;  West 
et  al.  V.  City  of  Eau  Claire,  1912,  9  R.  G.  134;  Civic  League  et  al.  v.  Beaver 
Dam  W.  Co.,  1912, 10  R.  G.  661;  Superior  Comm'l.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior 
W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704. 

Pumping  rates. 

83.  Investigation  of  alleged  excessive  pumping  rates.  Village  of 
Sharon  v.  United  Ht.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  1. 


356  Rates-Water. — Reconnection  charges 


XIX.  RECONNECTION  CHARGES. 

Establishment  of. 

84.  Charges  established  for  reconnecting  meters  where  service  has 
been  disconnected.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
187;  In  re  Invest.  Evansuille  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197;  In  re 
Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913,  11  R.  C.  690;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson 
W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  729. 

XX.  REGRESSIVE  RATES. 

Discriminatory  nature  of. 

85.  The  most  evident  defect  of  the  old  schedule  is  its  regressive 
feature,  Instead  of  charging  all  consumers  alike  for  the  first  500  gallons 
used  per  day,  for  example,  the  company  has  charged  a  consumer  who  used 
400  gallons  per  day  35  cts.  per  1,000  gallons,  but  a  consumer  whose  use 
amounted  to  600  gallons  per  day  was  charged  30  cts.  per  1,000  gallons  for 
the  entire  amount,  instead  of  35  cts.  per  1,000  for  the  first  500  gallons  per 
day.  The  result  of  this  has  been  to  enable  a  consumer  to  use  a  larger 
amount  of  water  at  a  total  cost  less  than  the  cost  of  a  smaller  amount. 
City  of  Janesuille  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  666-667. 

XXI.  SERVICE  CHARGES. 

Establishment  of. 

86.  Service  charges  established  for  water  service.  In  re  Appl. 
Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  C.  555;  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison 
Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  731;  Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910, 
6  R.  C.  26;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187; 
In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497;  City  of  Janesville 
V.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628;  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Toma- 
hawk, 1911,  8  R.  C.  40;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City  Water  Co.  of  Marinette, 
1911,  8  R.  C.  334;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479;  West  et  al. 
V.  City  of  Eau  Claire,  1912,  9  R.  C.  134;  Civic  League  et  al.  v.  Beaver  Dam 
W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  661;  In  re  Appl.  Neenah  Mun.  W.  Wks.,  1912, 

11  R.  C.  119;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C. 
197;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236;  Rollins 
et  al.  V.  Village  of  Montfort,  1913,  11  R.  C.  278;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W. 
&  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  449;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan,  1913, 

12  R.  C.  148;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  <fc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C. 
260;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1;  In  re  Appl.  Green 
Bay  Water  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  84. 

XXII.  SEWER  FLUSHING  RATES. 
See  also  post,  90. 

Establishment  of. 

87.  Rates  for  sewer  flushing  established.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City 
W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Water  Co., 


Rates-Water. — Tapping  of  mains  357 

1911,  7  R.  C.  628;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911, 
8  R.  C.  334;  In  re  AppL  Citij  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  C.  148;  In  re  Appl. 
Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  194;  /n  re  Appl  City  of 
Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  C.  532;  In  re  Invest.  Green  Bay  Water  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  734;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1;  Dennett 
et  at.  V.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  C.  634. 

XXIII.  SHORT  TIME  SERVICE. 

Rates  for. 

88.  Rate  for  short  time  service  established.  In  re  AppL  Ft.  Atkinson 
W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  729. 

XXIV.  STREET  SPRINKLING  RATES. 

Establishment  of. 

89.  Rates  for  street  sprinkhng  estabUshed.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City 
W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Water  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  G.  628;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911, 
8  R.  C.  334;  Civic  League  et  at.  v.  Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  661; 
In  re  Appl.  Neenah  Mun.  W.  Whs.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  119;  /n  re  Invest.  Evans- 
ville  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay 
W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  236;  In're  Appl.  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  449;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913,  11  R.  G.  690; 
In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  Sz  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194;  In  re 
Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G.  532;  Kittleson  et  at.  v.  Elroy  Mun. 
W.  <Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sz 
El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534. 

Nature  of. 

90.  The  use  for  flushing  purposes,  for  street  construction  work,  and 
for  street  sprinkhng  may  be  considered  "off-peak."  That  is,  these  are 
uses  of  water  which  do  not  occur  at  times  when  the  maximum  demand, 
consisting  of  the  demand  of  domestic  and  industrial  users  and  the  heaviest 
demand  for  fire  purposes,  is  being  exerted.  These  are,  therefore,  uses 
which  do  not  greatly  influence  the  required  capacity  of  the  plant,  and  may 
therefore  be  charged  with  less  in  the  way  of  capacity  expenses  than  other 
uses.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497,  558- 
559;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  671. 

XXV.  TAPPING  OF  MAINS. 

Charge  for. 

91.  A  charge  of  $5.00  is  made  for  tapping  mains.  The  city  furnishes 
all  connections  for  making  the  tap,  and  all  pipe  for  delivering  the  water 
from  the  mains  to  the  customer's  lot  line;  provided,  however,  that  not 
more  than  100  feet  of  service  pipe  will  be  furnished  to  any  one  consumer. 
In  re  Appl.  Park  Falls  Mun.  W.  Wks.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  284,  285. 


358 Ratio  of  Demand  to  Connected  Load 

RATIO   OF  DEMAND  TO  CONNECTED  LOAD. 

Load  factor  for  electric  utilities,  see  Electric  Utilities,  18-22. 

RAW  MATERIALS. 

Rates,  joint  or  through  rates  on  raw  materials  manufactured  on  originating 
line,  see  Rates  Railroad,  100-lOL 

REAL  PROPERTY. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  the  physical  property  of  public  utilities,  see 

Valuation,  63-12L 
Determination  of  the  value  of  the  physical  property  of  public  utilities, 

value  of  land,  see  Valuation,  149-152. 

REASONABLE  RETURN. 

5ee  Return. 

REASONABLENESS   OF  RATES. 

See  Rates. 

REBATES  OR  CONCESSIONS. 

5ee  also  Rates — Electric;  Rates — Telephone;  Rates — Water. 
Allowance  of  additional  compensatory  time  under  demurrage  rules  in 

case  of  delay  in  unloading  cars,  see  Demurrage  Rules,  1-8. 
Limitation  of  statute,  in  reparation  proceedings,  as  safeguard  against 

rebates  or  concessions,  see  Reparation,  32. 


I.  ALLOWANCE  TO  CONSUMERS  OF  PUBLIC  UTILITY. 

II.  ALLOWANCE  TO  SUBSCRIBER  OF  TELEPHONE  UTILITY. 

III.  CONCESSIONS  IN  TELEPHONE  RATES. 

IV.  DEPARTURE  FROM  PUBLISHED  RATE. 


I.  ALLOWANCE  TO  CONSUMER  OF  PUBLIC  UTILITY. 

On  account  of  ownership  of  instrument  or  facility. 

1.  The  Public  Utilities  Law  expressly  prohibits  a  utility  from  charging 
a  consumer  who  owns  his  equipment,  or  any  portion  thereof,  a  lower 
rate  than  that  paid  by  consumers  who  do  not  own  such  equipment,  but 
provides  that  in  case  a  consumer  owns  his  equipment  the  utility  may  pay 
him  a  reasonable  rental  for  its  use.  In  re  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C. 
98,  112;  In  re  Invest.  Hudson  W.  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  138,  141;  City  of 
Janesville  v.  Janesvillc  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  637;  In  re  Appl.  Bruce 
W.  cfc  Lt.  'Comm.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  474,  476;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Neenah, 


Reconnection  359 


1912,  11  R.  C.  119,  128;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  260,  303,  313;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C. 
52,  54;  In  re  Appl  Mosinee  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  709,  710. 

II.  ALLOWANCE  TO  SUBSCRIBER  OF  TELEPHONE  UTILITY. 

For  repairs  and  equipment  rentals. 

2.  Granting  a  rebate  for  repairs  and  equipment  rentals  is  unlawful- 
Knapp  et  al.  v.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  180,  183-184. 

On  account  of  ownership  of  stock, 

3.  As  the  Public  Utilities  Law  requires  that  all  customers  be  treated 
alike,  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  lower  rate  to  stockholders  than  to  the 
others.  The  only  way  in  which  they  can  be  reimbursed  is  through 
dividends  declared  after  allowance  has  been  made  for  depreciation. 
Knapp  et  al  v.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  180,  192;  In  re  Appl. 
Rockland  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  402,  408;  In  re  Appl.  Mascoda  Mut. 
Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  666,  683;  In  re  Appl.  Beef  River  Valley  Tel.  Co., 

1913,  12  R.  C.  126;  In  re  Appl.  Marquette  Sc  Adams  County  Tel.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  750,  751. 

III.  CONCESSIONS  IN  TELEPHONE  RATES*. 

Reasonableness  of. 

4.  Concessions  in  rates  can  often  reasonably  be  made  to  certain 
kinds  of  telephone  subscribers  because  of  the  value  of  connections  there- 
with to  other  subscribers.  Olson  et  al.  u.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  440, 
450. 

IV.  DEPARTURE  FROM  PUBLISHED  RATE. 

Prohibited. 

5.  A  rebate  of  any  part  of  the  duly  published  rate  granted  by  a 
railroad  and  accepted  by  a  shipper  would  be  in  violation  of  the  statutes 
and  subject  both  parties  to  a  penalty,  unless  the  same  had  first  been 
authorized  in  accordance  with  sec.  1797-37/n  of  the  Statutes.  Wis. 
Coal  Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  339,  341. 

JIECEIVING  LINES. 

Rates  for  receiving  lines,  see  Rates — Telephone,  66. 

RECONNECTION. 

Reconnection  of  telephone  service  ordered  to  prevent  discrimination,  see 
Discrimination,  103. 


360  Reconnectlon  Charges 


RECONNECTION  CHARGES. 

For  electric  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  86. 

For  gas  service,  see  Rates — Gas,  19. 

For  heating  service,  see  Rates — Heating,  4. 

For  telephone  service,  see  Rates — Telephone,  67. 

For  water  service,  see  Rates — Water,  84. 

Regulations  for  reconnectlon  of  service,  see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

38-40. 

,  ♦ 

recovery: 

See  Reparation. 

REDUCED  RATE  SERVICE. 

Investigation  on  motion  of  the  Commission  of  free  and  reduced  rate 

telephone  service  in  Wisconsin,  see  Rates — Telephone,  23. 
Reduced  rate  tickets  may  be  sold  to  homeseekers,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

62. 
Sec.  1797-8  of  the  Wis.  Stat,  does  not  prevent  railroads  from  furnishing 

reduced  rate  service  under  certain  conditions,  see  Railroad  Law, 

13.  • 

REDUCED  RATE  TRANSPORTATION. 

TRANSPORTATION  OF  PASSENGERS. 

Reduced  rates  to  commuters. 

1.  The  granting  of  commutation  rates  for  suburban  travel  is  quite 
general,  and  such  rates  are  defensible  on  various  grounds.  They  tend  to 
benefit  the  public  by  permitting  and  inducing  residence  at  considerable 
distance  from  the  place  of  occupation,  thus  aiding  the  territorial  growth 
of  cities  and  relieving  their  congested  districts.  So  far  as  they  have  that 
effect,  such  rates  in  turn  benefit  the  railways  by  securing  business  that 
otherwise  would  not  exist  and  revenue  not  otherwise  obtainable.  (Sprigg 
ei  al.  V.  B.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1900,  8  I.  C.  C.  R.  443.)  Lieberman  v.  C. 
M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  330,  332. 

REDUCTION  OF  RATES. 

Reduction  of  rate  not  to  be  construed  as  an  admission  of  prior  unreason- 
ableness, see  Reparation,  18. 

Reduction  on  account  of  furnishing  of  facilities  by  consumer  prohibited, 
see  Discrimination,  13,  40,  91;  Rebates  or  Concessions,  1-2. 

Reduction  on  account  of  ownership  of  stock  by  subscribers,  prohibited, 
see  Discrimination,  90;  Rebates  or  Concessions,  3. 

Reduction  without  authority  from  Commission,  see  Rates — Utility,  3. 


Relocation  of  Station  361 


REFRIGERATOR  CARS. 

Refrigerator  car  service,  see  Railroads,  81. 

REFUNDS. 

Refund  from  charges  collected,  see  Reparation,  36-153. 

REFUSAL  OF  SERVICE. 

Refusal  of  service  by  electric  utility  for  failure  of  customer  to  replace 
burned  out  transformer,  see  Electric  Utilities,  51. 

Refusal  of  service  by  public  utility  for  nonpayment  of  bills  rendered,  see 
Rules  and  Regulations,  31-40. 

REGRESSIVE  RATES. 

Regressive  rates  for  water  utility,  see  Rates — Water,  85. 

REGULATION  OF  RATES. 

See  Rates. 

Authority  of  Railroad  Commission  to  regulate  rates,  see  Railroad  Com- 
mission, 110-111,  124-128,  133-136. 

REGULATIONS. 

See  Rules  and  Regulations. 

REHEARING. 

Proceedings  before  Commission,  rehearing  upon  original  petitions  subse- 
quent to  vacation  of  order  by  court,  see  Procedure,  11. 
rehearing  while  court  review  of  order  of  Commission  pending,  see 
Procedure,  12. 

RELATION  OF  RATES. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  193. 

RELATION  OF  WEIGHT  TO  SPACE. 

Relation  of  weight  of  article  to  space  occupied  as  element  considered  in 
making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — -Railroad,  151-152. 

RELOCATION  OF  STATION. 

Relocation  of  railroad  station,  for  safety  purposes,  see  Station  Facili- 
ties, 4-6. 


362       Relocation  of  Spur  Track 

RELOCATION  OF  SPUR  TRACK. 

See  Switch  Connections. 

i 

RELOCATION  OF  TELEPHONE  EXCHANGE. 

So  long  as  no  unreasonable  expenditures  will  result,  the  location  of  a  tele- 
phone exchange  is  a  matter  to  be  determined  by  the  utility,  see 
Telephone  Utilities,  29. 

REMOVAL  CHARGES. 

Charges  made  for  removing  telephones,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  68-69. 

RENEWALS. 

Nature  of. 

1.  Renewals  are  not  properly  additions  to  the  property  and  plant,  and 
a  statement  of  original  cost  which  includes  such  charges  has  little  bearing 
upon  the  fair  value  of  the  property  used  and  useful  for  the  convenience  of 
the  public  at  the  present  time.  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm., 
1913,  12  R.  C  260,  281. 

RENT. 

Unpaid  rent  on  water  power  lease  not  an  element  of  value  in  valuation  of 
property  of  electric  utility,  see  Valuation,  126. 

RENTAL  FOR  EQUIPMENT. 

See  also  Equipment  Rental. 

As  matter  considered  in"  determining  reasonableness  of  electric  rates,  see 
Rates — Electric,  72. 
of  telephone  rates,  see  Rates — Telephone,  61. 
Rental  for  equipment  and  facilities,  paid  by  utility  to  consumer  of  electric 
utility,  see  Rates — Electric,  52. 
of  gas  utility,  see  Rates — Gas,  10. 
of  water  utility,  see  Rates — Water,  60. 
to  subscriber  of  telephone  utility,  see  Rates — Telephone,  14. 
Rental  for  equipment  and  facilities,  paid  to  utility  by  consumer  of  electric 
utility,  see  Rates — Electric,  51. 

RENTAL  FOR  THROUGH  LINES. 

Apportionment  of  rental  for  through  lines  in  the  determination  of  unit 
costs  for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  163. 

REORGANIZATION  EXPENSES. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  122. 


Reparation. — In  general      363 


REPARATION. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

II.  GROUND  FOR  RECOVERY. 

III.  JURISDICTION  OF  COMMISSION. 

IV.  JURISDICTION  OF  COURTS. 
V.  LIMITATION  OF  STATUTE. 

VI.  PROCEEDINGS  FOR  RECOVERY. 

VII.  REFUNDS. 

a.  Refund  from  charge.  e.   Refund  from  drayagc  charges. 

b.  Refund  from  charge    based  on.  f.   Refund    from    excess    charge    or- 

c.  Refund  from  charge  caused  by.  dered  on  basis  of. 

d.  Refund  from  demurrage  charge,  g.   Refund  from  express  charge. 


I.     IN  GENERAL 

Charges  in  excess  of  lawful  rates. 

1.  If  the  rates  charged  were  not  the  lawful  rates,  the  company  could 
have  refunded  the  excess  without  any  authority  from  the  Commission. 
Kiel  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  597,  599; 
Mason  &  Martin  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  74,  75;  Waukesha 
Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  3c  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  C.  579,  580. 

Conditions  under  which  awarded. 

2.  The  law  allows  reparation  to  be  awarded  a  shipper  only  when, 
upon  investigation,  the  Commission  shall  find  and  determine  that  the 
schedule  rate  or  charge  exacted  is  either  unusual  or  exorbitant,  and,  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  amount  of  reparation,  shall  also  deter- 
mine what  the  reasonable  rate  or  charge  would  have  been  for  the  services 
rendered  by  the  railway  company.  Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54,  56. 

3.  No  refund  can  be  granted  which  is  based  upon  the  petitioner's 
mere  estimate  of  its  loss  during  any  period  preceding  the  making  of  the 
claim,  and  only  the  shipments  specifically  set  forth  will  be  considered  as 
the  basis  for  a  refund.  Brittingham  <Sc  Young  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1911,  8  R.  C.  131,  137. 

Law  authorizing  refunds  not  retroactive. 

4.  The  changing  of  a  rate  by  the  Commission  because  the  same  is 
found  to  be  unjust  and  unreasonable,  does  not  render  such  rate  unjust 
and  unreasonable  ab  initio.  All  schedules  of  rates  printed  and  filed  as 
required  by  the  act  (ch.  362,  1905)  were  legal  and  binding  upon  both 
shipper  and  carrier  until  changed  by  the  Commission,  and  any  change 
made  by  the  Commission  in  any  rates  contained  in  such  schedules  because 
the  same  are  unreasonable,  only  operates  to  make  such  rates  unjust  and 
unreasonable  from  the  time  of  the  taking  effect  of  the  new  or  substituted 
rates.  Consequently  it  must  follow  that  a  shipper  had  no  legal  or  moral 
claim  to  any  excess  charge  if  the  change  resulted  in  a  lowering  of  the  rate 
which  he  paid  for  the  service.  Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1907,^2  R.  C.  116,  123-124;  Connor  Land  <Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1911/7  R.  C.  774,  778. 


364 Reparation. — In  General 

5.  Section  1797-37m  (sec.  8,  ch.  582,  Laws  of  1907)  is  not  retroac- 
tive. City  of  Superior  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  126,  129;  Dells  Paper 
&  Pulp  Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  129,  131. 

Legality  of  refund. 

6.  While  the  statute  provides  that  no  greater  or  less  compensation 
can  be  charged  for  a  shipment  than  that  named  in  the  published  tariffs, 
yet  inasmuch  as  the  W.  C.  R.  Co.  published  joint  rates  of  12  cents  per  100 
lb.  with  two  other  carriers,  in  the  absence  of  instructior^s  as  to  routing 
by  the  consignor,  it  was  its  duty  to  so  route  the  car  as  to  give  the  shipper 
the  benefit  of  the  lowest  combination  of  published  rates,  and  that,  failing 
to  do  so,  it  was  liable  for  the  excess  charged  over  and  above  the  lowest 
published  rates.     Hodges  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  300,  306. 

Overcharges  collected  in  accordance  with  published  rate. 

7.  It  was  because  of  the  fact  that,  when  the  schedule  rate  was  ex- 
acted for  any  shipment  of  freight,  the  shipper  was  without  any  redress  if 
the  same  was  challenged  and  found  upon  investigation  to  be  excessive, 
that  the  legislature  enacted  sec.  1797-37/77  of  the  Statutes  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  original  Railroad  Commission  Act.  Wis.  Coal  Co.  v.  W.  C. 
R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  339,  342. 

8.  Chapter  271,  laws  of  1909,  conferred  power  upon  the  Commission 
to  authorize  refunds  on  certain  accrued  claims.  The  period  for  filing  such 
claims  was  limited  to  30  days  and  the  statute,  by  its  terms,  expired  at 
the  end  of  that  period.  Sec.  1797-37/77,  passed  in  1907,  was  regarded  as  a 
statute  of  limitations  and  therefore  in  enacting  ch.  271,  laws  of  1909,  the 
legislature  was  cautious  not  to  undertake  to  create  any  liability  on  the 
part  of  the  railroads  as  to  claims  which  might  be  barred  by  such  section. 
Accordingly  under  ch.  271,  sec.  1797-12a  the  railroads  were  merely  ex- 
empted from  the  penalty  of  the  general  statute  if  reparations  were  made 
by  them  upon  the  finding  of  the  Commission.  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co. 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  780-781. 

Overcharges  collected  in  violation  of  Railroad  Commission  Act. 

9.  Section  32,  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905,  has  no  application  to  a  claim 
presented  upon  the  ground  that  the  legal  rate  exacted  is  either  unusual  or 
exorbitant,  but  relates  to  overcharges  exacted  in  violation  of  the  act. 
Wis.  Coal  Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  339,  342. 

Refund  from  public  utility  rates  prohibited. 

10.  Any  agreement  to  make  a  refund  of  any  part  of  the  rates  or 
charges  in  the  schedule  on  file  with  the  Commission  is  a  violation  of  sees. 
1797/n-33  and  1797/77-92  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law.  Douglass  et  al.  v. 
Eguiiable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913.  12  R.  C.  337.  354. 

11.  GROUND  FOR  RECOVERY. 

Claim  based  on  contract  for  different  rate  than  that  stated  in  the 
published  schedule. 

11.  The  fact  that  an  agent  of  the  railway  company  may  have  quoted 
a  different  rate  to  petitioner  than  the  one  provided  in  the  published  tariff. 


Reparation. — Ground  for  recovery  365 

is  no  ground  for  a  recovery  of  the  amount  which  petitioner  wa?  obliged  to 
pay  in  excess  of  the  rate  so  quoted,  Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
Si.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54,  55-56;  Barney  v.  G.  B.  <k  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1910,  4  R.  C.  775,  776;  Osceola  Mill  and  Elevator  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  291,  292;  Callaway  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al,  1914,  13  R.  C.  694,  697. 

Competitive  nature  of  traffic. 

12.  In  the  instant  case  there  are  considerations  in  addition  to  the 
general  unreasonableness  of  the  rate  which  make  the  claims  for  reparation 
valid.  These  considerations  arise  out  of  the  competitive  nature  of  some 
of  the  traffic  which  would  have  made  the  shipments  in  question  unavailable 
to  the  respondent  unless  the  lower  rates  were  met.  So.  Wis.  Sand  Sc 
Gravel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  380,  384-385. 

Damages. 

13.  While  the  statute  does  not  require  the  showing  of  damages  in 
order  to  secure  reparation,  it  may  be  that  the  matter  of  damages  may 
sometimes  be  of  value  as  an  evidentiary  fact  tending  to  show  what  the 
situation  has  been  during  the  period  for  which  refund  is  asked.  Flambeau 
Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  699,  703. 

Existence  of  a  lower  rate  on  a  competing  line. 

14.  It  has  been  held  repeatedly  in  reparation  cases  that  a  refund  may 
be  granted  when  a  competing  line  has  a  lower  rate  in  effect  and  the  respon- 
dent railway  company  could  not  have  participated  in  the  traffic  upon  its 
lawfully  published  rate.  Geo.  T.  Rowland  &  Son  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  C.  163;  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  167;  So.  Wis.  Sand  Sc  Gravel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  380,  384. 

Ignorance  of  duly  published  rate. 

15.  Ignorance  of  duly  published  rates  is  not  a  ground  for  a  refund, 
though  the  lawful  rates  exacted  may  be  in  excess  of  those  the  railway 
company  would  have  been  willing  to  make  effective  if  knowledge  of  the 
proposed  shipments  had  been  previously  communicated  to  it.  Fountain- 
Campbell  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  63,  64. 

Recent  change  of  classification  not  a  proof  of  reasonableness  of 
rate  under  previous  classifications. 

16.  The  fact  that  a  distinction  in  the  various  grades  of  commodity 
has  been  recently  made  and  rates  adjusted  on  the  basis  of  this  distinction, 
does  not  prove  that  the  former  classification,  and  the  rates  applicable 
under  it,  were  not  unreasonable.  Moritz  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  C.  684,  685-686. 

Reduced  rate  may  be  considered  to  have  been  reasonable  prior  to 
the  date  of  its  establishment. 

17.  Although  the  fixing  of  a  reasonable  rate  at  any  given  time  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  this  rate  would  have  been  reasonable  at  any 
previous  point  of  time,  yet  neither  is  it  conclusive  evidence  that  the 


366  Reparation. — Ground  for  recovery 

new  rate  would  not  have  been  reasonable  prior  to  the  date  of  the  order 
estabhshing  it.  Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  690,  692-693. 

Reduction  of  rate  not  to  be  construed  as  an  admission  of  prior 
unreasonableness. 

18.  A  shipper  is  not  entitled  to  a  refund  merely  because  a  railway 
company  amends  a  tariff  by  lowering  a  rate  which  a  shipper  was  obliged 
to  pay  for  shipments  made  prior  to  the  amendment.  Such  a  reduction, 
independently  of  other  considerations,  should  not  be  held  to  be  an  admis- 
sion on  the  part  of  the  railway  company  that  the  prior  rate  was  either 
unusual  or  exorbitant.  Steven  &  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R. 
Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  131,  134;  Menasha  Woodenware  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  589,  592;  Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 

1908,  2  R.  C.  700,  702;  Brittingham  &  Young  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  4  R.  C.  772,  773;  Connor  Land  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  779;  1912,  8  R.  C.  697;  Wis.  Lakes  Ice  Sc 
Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  62,  63-64;  Northern  Wood 
Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  8  R.  G.  62,  63;  Wausau 
Paper  Mills  Co.  v:  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  400,  404;  Flambeau 
Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  R.  G.  699,  703;  Mitchell 
Lewis  Motor  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  709,  710;  Peshtigo 
Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  624,  626,  627. 

Refund  from  charge  caused  by  shipper's  error  in  routing. 

19.  No  authority  exists  for  granting  relief  to  a  shipper  from  a  charge 
caused  by  the  shipper's  own  error  in  routing.  Wis.  Coal  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  339,  342. 

Special   rate   to    manufacturers   not   basis   of  recovery   for   other 
shippers. 

20.  The  fact  that  the  rates  to  manufacturers  were  lower  at  the  time 
of  the  shipments  in  question  than  the  rates  to  coal  dealers  at  the  same 
points,  cannot  be  made  the  basis  for  a  refund.  So.  Milwaukee  Fuel  Sc 
Supply  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  1,  7. 

III.  JURISDIGTION  OF  GOMMISSION. 
See  also  Railroad  Gommission,  1-14.     * 

Authority  of  Commission  in  awarding  reparation. 

21.  Before  sec.  1797-37/n,  ch.  582,  laws  1907,  was  amended  by  ch. 
136  of  the  laws  of  1909,  the  Railroad  Gommission  could  only  authorize 
refunds  in  cases  where  the  charges  exacted  were  in  accordance  with  the 
duly  published  and  legal  rates  in  force,  and  where  they  were  found  upon 
complaint  of  a  shipper  to  have  been  either  unusual  or  exorbitant.  The 
addition  of  the  words  erroneous  and  illegal  broadened  the  scope  of  the 
statute  so  as  to  include  all  charges,  whether  in  conformity  with  the  legal 
tariffs  or  otherwise.     Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1909,  3  R.  G.  597,  599-600. 


Reparation. — Jurisdiction  of  Comnisslon 367 

22.  Prior  to  the  enactment  of  eh.  271,  laws  of  1909,  the  Commission 
was  without  authority  to  authorize  reparation  for  claims  that  had  accrued 
prior  to  the  act  providing  that  reparation  might  be  made  in  certain 
instances.  Chapter  271  provided  for  a  period  of  thirty  days  in  which 
claims  of  this  character  could  be  submitted  to  the  Commission  for  in- 
vestigation and  could  be  allowed  if  the  Commission  should  determine  that 
the  charges  exacted  were  either  erroneous,  unusual  or  exorbitant. 
Ahnapee  Veneer  &  Seating  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
106,  108;  Ahnapee  Veneer  &  Seating  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co. 
etat.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  109,  110. 

23.  In  considering  whether  reparation  may  be  made  in  any  particular 
case,  the  Commission  is  confined  to  determining  whether  the  schedule 
rate  exacted  is  exorbitant  or  unusual,  and  if  it  finds  such  rate  either 
excessive  or  unusual,  it  must  ascertain  what  the  reasonable  rate  would 
have  been,  and  the  latter  rate  then  not  only  determines  the  basis  of  the 
award,  but  indicates  the  rate  to  be  established  and  applied  in  the  future. 
Joannes  Bros.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  422,  424;  Mace 
Lime  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  590,  592;  Menasha  Paper  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  620,  622. 

24.  The  Commission  cannot  under  the  statute  relieve  a  shipper 
from  the  payment  of  the  lawful  established  tariff  charges  but  can  only 
authorize  refunds  after  the  payments  have  been  made  and  have  been 
duly  found  to  be  exorbitant,  unusual,  illegal  and  erroneous.  When  a 
shipper  considers  demurrage  rules  to  be  unreasonable,  his  proper  procedure 
is  to  pay  the  demurrage  charges  and  apply  for  a  refund.  Paine  Lbr.  Co. 
Ltd.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  633,  634. 

25.  While  the  thing  this  statute  (sec.  1797-37 m)  specifically  requires 
the  Commission  to  find  is,  "what  in  its  judgment  w^ould  have  been  & 
reasonable  rate  or  charge  for  the  service  complained  of,"  the  law  further 
empowers  the  complainant  to  sue  for  recovery  of  "the  amount  of  such 
excessive  charge  as  found  by  said  commission."  In  the  language  last 
quoted  there  would  seem  to  be  a  clear  implication  that  the  Commission 
has  authority  to  make  a  specific  finding  of  the  amount  of  refund  authorized. 
Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  u.  M.  St.  P.  Sz  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  e/  a/.,  1912,  10  R.  C. 
632,  633-634. 

26.  In  the  present  case  the  loss  occasioned  to  the  shipper  on  account 
of  extra  drayage  charges  was  due  to  the  erroneous  and  misleading  shipping 
directions  which  were  given  to  the  respondent's  agent  by  the  shipper. 
Even  if  the  extra  drayage  charges  incurred  in  the  present  case  had  been 
due  to  the  negligence  of  the  railway  company  and  the  shipper  had  a 
valid  claim  for  the  loss  incurred,  it  could  not  be  enforced  in  a  reparation 
proceeding  nor  in  any  proceeding  before  the  Commission.  Damages  in 
such  a  case,  if  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  can  be  recovered  only 
in  an  action  in  court.  The  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  in  the  matter. 
Deeves  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  507,  509-510. 

27.  The  claim  for  reparation  on  the  carload  of  coal  shipped  from 
Escanaba,  Mich.,  to  Long  Lake,  is  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Com- 
mission for  the  reason  that  the  shipment  was  interstate.  Hale-Mytrea 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  709,  710. 


"  368  Reparation. — Jurisdiction  of  courts 


IV.  JURISDICTION  OF  COURTS. 

Jurisdiction  in  cases  involving  overcharges  upon  which  the  limi- 
tation of  the  statute  has  run. 

28.  It  may  not  be  inappropriate  under  the  circumstances  to  express 
the  view  of  the  Commission  that  no  action  in  court  can  be  instituted  to 
recover  any  alleged  overcharge  exacted  by  the  carrier  until  the  Commission 
has  condemned  under  the  statute  the  charge  actually  collected.  Since 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  is  limited  to  a  six  months'  period,  it 
cannot  investigate  the  reasonableness  of  the  charges  made  at  any  time 
previous,  and  a  finding  that  a  rate  is  exorbitant  or  unusual  at  any  given 
time  is  not  a  condemnation  of  such  rate  for  any  other  time  previous  thereto. 
The  Commission  is  constrained  to  hold  that  the  act  of  1905  superseded 
the  common  law  and  that  the  amendment  (sec.  1797-37/n)  to  the  act  is 
not  merely  remedial  in  its  character,  nor  does  it  merely  give  a  remedy 
for  an  existing  right.  It  confers  the  right  and  provides  the  remedy  to 
enforce  it.  The  contention  that  sec.  1797-37/n  did  not  bar  the  common 
law  remedy  is  not  valid.  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  776-778. 

V.  LIMITATION  OF  STATUTE. 

Claim  for  refund  barred  by  the  limitation  of  the  statute. 

29.  No  refund  can  be  authorized  on  account  of  shipments  upon 
which  the  limitation  of  the  statute  has  run.  Menasha  Paper  Co.  u. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  300,  301;  Stolte,  Dangel  and  Foss  Co.  v.  C. 
&  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909  3  R.  C.  335,  336;  Pabst  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  173,  174;  Sinaiko  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  426,  428;  Wis.  Fruit  Package  Co.  v.  Wis.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910, 
5  R.  C.  642;  Pelletier  &  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
721,  725;  Pulpwood  Co.  of  Appleton  u.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1910,  6  R.  C.  175,  177;  McEachron  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
667,  668;  Clark  v.  M.  Si.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  38,  39;  Mears- 
Slayton  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Wis.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  247,  249;  So. 
Milwaukee  Fuel  &  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  JR.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  473,  476; 
Francey  Coal,  Stone  &  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C. 
477,  478;  New  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Co.  v.  F.  <Sc  N.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1913,  11  R.  C.  272,  273;  Badger  Basket  Sc  Veneer  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1913, 11  R.  C.  492.  494-495. 

Computation  of  period  of  limitation. 

30.  Any  informal  complaint  relative  to  any  overcharge  upon  ship- 
ments of  freight  has  always  been  regarded  both  by  the  interstate  commerce 
commission  and  this  Commission  as  sufficient  to  stop  the  running  of  the 
statute  of  limitations  upon  the  claim.  In  such  instances,  although 
formal  petition  under  the  rules  of  practice  of  this  Commission  may  not 
have  been  filed  until  after  the  limitation  provided  in  the  statute  has 
expired,  the  Commission  has  considered  that  the  informal  complaint  to 
the  Commission  stopped  the  running  of  the  statute,  and  therefore  repara- 


Reparation. — Proceedings  for  recoverif 369 

tion  has  been  awarded  in  such  cases.  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  222,  224;  Duliith  Superior  Milling  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  459,  461-462. 

31.  In  Adew  of  the  fact  that  the  statute  of  Umitations  was  enlarged 
by  amendment  and  that  none  of  the  shipments  made  were  barred  before 
such  amended  statute  became  effective,  the  claims  presented  come  within 
the  limitations  of  the  amended  statute.  (Osborn  v.  Jaines,  1863,  17  Wis. 
573;  Pleasants  v.  Rohrer,  1863,  17  Wis.  577.)  Mayer  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
e/  a/.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  328,  329-330;  Northern  Wood  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  706,  707;  Foster-Latimer  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913.  12  R.  C.  239,  240. 

Purpose  of  limitation. 

32.  The  difficulty  of  ascertaining  all  the  facts  essential  to  a  decision 
of  the  question  in  a  reparation  case  for  any  length  of  time  in  the  past,  and 
the  danger  for  this  reason  of  again  opening  the  door  to  the  practice  of  re- 
bating, doubtless  influenced  the  legislature  in  limiting  the  scope  of  the 
investigation  to  such  shipments  as  reached  their  destination  within  a  pe- 
riod of  six  months,  now  one  year,  before  complaint  is  made.  Connor 
Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  779. 

VI.     PROCEEDINGS  FOR  RECOVERY. 
Nature  of. 

33.  According  to  the  usual  practice  of  the  Commission  the  matter  of 
refunds  is  determined  in  a  separate  proceeding  based  upon  a  formal  pet- 
tion  therein.  Duluth-Superior  Milling  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R  C. 
459,  461-462. 

Person  aggrieved  must  petition  Commission. 

34.  The  practice  of  one  claimant  instituting  proceedings  to  recover 
not  only  the  excessive  charges  exacted  upon  his  own  shipments  but  also 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  refunds  to  other  claimants  upon  like  ship- 
ments, who  were  not  parties  to  the  proceedings,  is  not  permitted  by  the 
statute.  So.  Milwaukee  Fuel  &  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
8  R.  C.  473,  476;  Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  433,  438;  1914,  13  R.  C.  772.  774. 

When  one  of  joint  carriers  is  not  a  party. 

35.  In  the  present  case,  while  reparation  is  authorized  on  joint  ship- 
ments, one  of  the  carriers  is  not  a  party  to  the  proceedings  and  no  finding 
herein  made  will  be  efTective  as  to  the  joint  transportation.  Nevertheless, 
as  the  claim  was  filed  within  the  statutory  period  a  valid  finding  could  be 
made  as  to  such  joint  transportation  in  a  subsequent  proceeding  against 
both  carriers.  Under  the  circumstances  both  carriers  will  be  permitted 
to  make  reparation  without  further  proceedings.  Barker  &  Stewart  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913.  11  R.  C.  537.  547. 


370 Reparation. — Refunds 

VII.  REFUNDS. 

a.    REFUND   FROM    CHARGE. 
Exacted  in  error. 

36.  Foster-Latimer  Lbr.  Co.  v..  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R,  Co.,  1913,  12 
R.  C.  239;  Bailey  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  et  at.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  699; 
Selle  &  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  635;  Franzen  6c 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  77;  Owen  &  Bro.  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  79;  Selle  Sc  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  d:  0.  R. 
Co.  et  at.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  225;  Miller  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
707. 

For  transit  privileges. 

37.  Hoyt  &  Bergen  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  532. 

In  excess  of  canceled  concentration  rate  subsequently  reinstated 
on    order    of    Commission. 

38.  Alart  &  McGuire  v.  G.  B.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  340;  Stolte, 
Dangel  Sc  Foss  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  335;  Ellis  &  Sons  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  337;  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  338. 

In  excess  of  transit  rate  subsequently  made  effective. 

39.  Osceola  Mill  Sc  Elevator  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  483;  Blodgett  Milling  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  771. 

In  excess  of  transit  rate  subsequently  made  eflfective  on  order  of 
the  Commission. 

40.  Mason  Sc  Martin  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  74. 

b.    REFUND   FROM    CHARGE   BASED   ON. 

Actual  weight  instead  of  estimated  weight. 

41.  Hale-Mulrea  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912. 10  R.  G.  639. 

Carload  rates  instead  of  trainload  rates,  on  account  of  failure  of 
carrier  to  furnish  sufficient  cars. 

42.  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  281. 

Check  weight  instead  of  weight  show^n  at  shipping  point. 

43.  Wheeler-Timlin  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.^  1910,  6  R.  G. 
434. 

Class  rates  and  higher  then  ordinary  commodity  rates  prevailing 
under  like  conditions  and  also  higher  than  the  cost  of 
transportation  warrants. 

44.  Mayer  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  268. 

Class  rates  and  in  excess  of  commodity  rates  applicable  to  coni- 
modities  of  a  similar  character. 

45.  Fergot  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909.  4  R.  G.  248. 


Reparation. — Refunds 371 

Class  rates  and  in  excess  of  commodity  rates  for  emergency  case. 

46.  Elmore-Benjamin  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  396. 

Class  rates  and  in  excess  of  commodity  rates  previously  in  effect 
and  subsequently  made  effective. 

47.  Higgins  Spring  &  Axle  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R  C. 
180. 

Class  rates  and  in  excess  of  commodity  rates  subsequently  made 
effective. 

48.  Jahns  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  480; 
Pape  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  566. 

Class  rates  and  in  excess  of  commodity  rates  subsequently  made 
effective  for  intermediate  point. 

49.  Mitchell  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  18. 

Class  rates  instead  of  joint  concentration  rates. 

50.  Borden  Co.  v.  L.  C.  Sc  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  R.  C.  439. 

Commodity  rates  instead  of  class  rates  properly  applicable. 

51.  Rom  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  325. 

Commodity  rates  instead  of  switching  charge  in  legal  effect. 

52.  MoTse  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  531. 

Commodity  rates  instead  of  switching  rate  in  eflfect  at  the  time 
the  shipment  moved. 

t 

53.  Francey  Coal,  Stone  Sc  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
8  R.  C.  477. 

Commodity  switching  charge  instead  of  general  switching  charge 
subsequently   made  effective. 

54.  Superior  Crushed  Rock  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
6  R.  C.  219. 

Distance  rate  and  in  excess  of  commodity  rate  subsequently  made 
effective. 

55.  Broughton  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  432. 

Distance  rate  instead  of  concentration  rate  claimed  by  shipper. 

56.  Krouskop  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  32. 

Distance  tariff  rate  instead  of  a  general  switching  charge. 

57.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sb  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15 
R.  C.  171. 

Distance  tariff  rate  instead  of  the  switching  charge  subsequently 
made  effective. 

58.  Sinaiko  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  426;  Superior 
Crushed  Rock  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  449;  Western 
Ind.  Constr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  309;  Gillette-0' Leary 


372 Reparation, — Refunds 

Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913, 11  R.  C.  276;  Rusk  Box  &  Furniture 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  136;  Mason-Donaldson 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914, 15  R.  G.  388. 

b.    REFUND   FROM    CHARGE   BASED   ON — Continued 

Higher  rates  than  those  ordered  by  the  Commission. 

59.  Barker-Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15 
R.  G.  645. 

Higher  rate  than  was  applicable,  but  also  based  on  a  lower  mini- 
mum weight  than  the  railroad  company  was  bound  to 
apply  under  the  circumstances. 

60.  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  199. 

Improper  routing. 

61.  Hodges  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  300;  Callaway  Fuel  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  694. 

Minimum  weight  increased  through  inadvertence  and  subse- 
quently lowered. 

62.  Stange  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  596. 

Minimum  weight  of  larger  capacity  car  furnished  at  the  con- 
venience of  the  carrier  instead  of  the  minimum  weight  of 
the  car  ordered  by  the  shipper. 

63.  Franke  Grain  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  182;  Bartletl 
&  Son  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  451;  Roddis  Lbr.  &  Veneer 
Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  571;  Colby  Cheese  Box  &  Silo 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914, 15  R.  G.  469;  Stevens  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  524. 

Minimum  weight  of  smaller  capacity  cars  furnished  at  the  con- 
venience of  the  carrier  instead  of  the  minimum  weight  of 
the  cars  ordered  by  the  shipper. 

64.  Morgan  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  34;  Kiel 
Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  278;  Oshkosh  Fuel 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  775. 

Minimum  weight  rule  for  close  of  shipping  season. 

65.  Bacon  Sc  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  468. 

Minimum  weight  which  cannot  be  loaded. 

66.  Albert  Trostel  Sc  Sons  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  761 ;  Mace 
Lime  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  590;  Druecker  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  594;  Minneapolis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1909, 
4  R.  G.  206;  Oshkosh  Bottle  Wrapper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  C.  333;  Standard  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1912,  9  R.  G.  228;  Maxson  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
269;  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  400;  Barker  Sc 
Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  537;  Allen  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913:  12  R.  G.  95;  Westboro  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  378;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  171. 


Reparation. — Refunds 373 

Minimum  weight  which  could  not  be  loaded  and  which  was  sub- 
sequently lowered. 

67.  Badger  Basket  Sc  Veneer  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  492;  Oshkosh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  178. 

Minimum   weight   which   was   estimated   on   a   measurement   in 
excess  of  the  foot  measurement  reasonably  applicable. 

68.  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  226. 

Minimum  weight  w^hich  was  subsequently  lowered. 

69.  Ives  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  675;  Pietsch 
Iron  Wks.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  540;  Menasha  Woodenware 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  746;  Oglebay,  Norton  & 
Co.  D.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1913,  12  R.  G.  716. 


Rates  higher  than  rates  for  other  kinds  of  traffic. 

70.  Wausau  Paper  Mill  Co.  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R  C. 
417. 

Rate  higher  than  rate  effective  between  same  points  on  a  com- 
peting line. 

71.  Superior  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  160. 

Rates  higher  than  the  rates  exacted  from  more  distant  points. 

72.  Leonard  Seed  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R  G. 
97. 

Rates  higher  than  the  rates  prevailing  on  other  roads  under  sub- 
,  stantially  similar  conditions,  and  also  higher  than  the  cost 
of  transportation  warrants. 

73.  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  663;  Pelletier  &  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
721;  Perley  Lowe  Sc  Co.  v.  W.  Sc  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  108. 

» 

Rates  higher  than  the  rates  prevailing  under  substantially  similar 
conditions  and  also  higher  than  the  cost  of  transportation 
warrants. 

74.  Krouskop  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  178,  184;  Mc- 
Eachron  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  667;  So.  Milwaukee  Fuel  Sc 
Supply  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  1;  Brittingham  Sc  Young 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  131;  So.  Milwaukee  Fuel  Sc 
Supply  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  473;  Wis.  Lakes  Ice  Sc 
Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  S:  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  101;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co. 
V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  Ill;  Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  400;  Schultz  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  370;  Wis.  Lakes  Ice  Sc  Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1912,  11  R.  G.  62;  Flambeau  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al, 

1913,  11  R.  G.  699;  Johnson  Sc  Hill  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  752;   Creamery  Package  Mfg.   Co.  v.  M.  St.  Sc.  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  761. 


374 Reparation. ^-Refunds 

b.    REFUND    FROM    CHARGE   BASED   ON— Continued 

Rates  higher  than  the  rates  prevailing  under  substantially  similar 
conditions,  and  also  on  a  reasonable  rate  subsequently 
made  effective. 

75.  Browndeer  Lbr.  Sc  Fuel  Co.  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
138,  139. 

Rates  in  excess  of  those  previously  established  by  order  of  the 
Commission. 

76.  Pulpwood  Co.  of  Appleton  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
6  R.  C.  175. 

Rate  previously  held  to  be  unreasonable  by  the  Commission. 

77.  Mason-Donaldson  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  82;  Fargo  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  162. 

Rate  subsequently  held  to  be  unreasonable  by  the  Commission. 

78.  Pulp  Wood  Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  250 
Daniel  Shaw  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  342 
Edward  Nines  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  390 
Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  433 
So.  Wis.  Sand  Sc  Gravel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  380 
Northern  Milling  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  468;  Peshtigo 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  624;  John  Gund  Brwg.  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  82;  Central  Wis.  Traffic  Bur.  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  521;  Mason-Donaldson  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  575;  John  H.  Allen  Seed  Co.  v.  C.  Sc 
AT.  W.  i?.  Co.  e/ a/.,  1915, 15  R.  C.  641. 

Schedule  of  rates  not  filed  at  the  station  and  therefore  not  in 
legal  effect. 

79.  Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  597. 

Schedule  of  rates  not  filed  with  the  Commission  and  therefore 
not  in  legal  effect. 

80.  Whittet  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  480. 

Sum  of  the  locals  instead  of  the  group  rates  subsequently  made 
effective. 

81.  Barker  Sc  Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  141. 

Sum  of  the  locals  instead  of  on  the  reasonable  group  rate  which 
should  have  been  in  effect. 

82.  Pounder  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  219. 

Sum  of  the  locals  instead  of  the  through  commodity  rates  subse- 
quently made  effective. 

83.  A.  C.  Parfrey  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1912, 
9  R.  C.  517. 


Reparation. — Refunds 375 

Sum  of  the  locals  instead  of  through  rates. 

84.  Badger  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  8  R.  G.  125; 

1913,  11  R.  G.  434;  John  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  823;  Vesper  Wood  Mfg.  Co.  v.  G.  B.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  442;  Stevens  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  524. 

Sum  of  the  locals  instead  of  through  rates  subsequently  made 
effective. 

85.  Northern  Wood  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  el  al,  1911, 
8  R.  G.  62. 

Sum  of  the  locals  instead  of  through  rate  to  point  beyond. 

86.  Blackwell  &  Kaiser  v.  C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
267. 

Sum  of  the  locals  instead  of  through  rates  with  stoppage  in  transit 
privileges  in  effect  previous  to  shipment  and  subsequently 
made  effective. 

87.  New  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  488. 

Switching  charge  which  is  excessive  as  compared  with  the  recip- 
rocal  switching  rate. 

88.  Waukesha  Lime  cfc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  534. 

Trackage  rate. 

89.  New  Dells  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
186. 

Track  scale  weights  instead  of  the  actual  scale  in  accordance  with 
the  published  schedule. 

90.  Shong  S:  Son  v.  S.  M.  Sc  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  40. 

Unreasonable  minimum  weights  and  charges  for  excess  weight 
on  logs. 

91.  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15 
R.  G.  569. 

Unreasonable  rate  and  minimum  weight  and  failure  to  absorb 
switching  charges  out  of  line  haul  earnings. 

92.  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  368;  1914,  15  R.  G.  479. 

c.  REFUND  FROM  CHARGE  CAUSED  BY. 

Applying  the  regular  class  rate  instead  of  the  commodity  rate 
applicable. 

93.  Benesch  Bros.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  383. 

Applying  the  wrong  rate  to  shipment. 

94.  Brandel  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  498. 


376 Reparation. — Refunds 

c.    REFUND    FROM    CHARGE   CAUSED    BY — Continued 

Charging  the  regular  distance  tariff  rate  instead  of  the  switching 
charge  subsequently  made  effective. 

95.  La  Crosse  Water  P.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
412;  6  R.  C.  173. 

Diversity  of  rates  in  the  tariffs  on  different  divisions  of  carrier's 
line. 

96.  Sullivan  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  687. 

Failure  of  carrier  to  absorb  switching  charges. 

97.  Blodgett  Milling  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  782. 

Failure  of  carrier  to  absorb  switching  charges  correctly. 

98.  Waukesha  Lime  <Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1913,  13  R.  G.  372. 

Failure  of  carrier  to  absorb  switching  charges  out  of  line  haul 
earnings. 

99.  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  368. 

Failure  of  carrier  to  apply  the  correct  commodity  rate. 

100.  Green  Bag  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  W.  &  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
362. 

Failure  of  carriers  to  put  in  legal  effect  a  stoppage  in  transit  privi- 
lege in  connection  with  a  joint  through  rate. 

101.  Whittet  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  195. 

Failure   to  include  petitioner   within   the   terms  of  a   switching 
tariff. 

102.  Milwaukee  Structural  Steel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &:  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  673. 

Failure  through  inadvertence  to  put  into  legal  effect  a  lower  rate 
previously   in   effect   and   subsequently   made   effective. 

103.  Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
703;  Stanz  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  579;  Lindsay 
Bros.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  17;  Higgins  Spring  & 
Axle  Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  283;  Philadelphia  <k  R.  C. 
&  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  542;  Keith  &  Hiles  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  e/  a/.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  57;  Ahnapee  Veneer 
<Sc  Seating  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  482;  Western 
Elevator  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  184. 

Failure  through  inadvertence  to  put  into  legal  effect  a  lower  rate 
subsequently   made   effective. 

104.  Stange-Ellis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  773 
Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  54 
Fountain-Campbell  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  63 
Steven  &  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  66 


Reparation. — Refunds 377 

Lindsay  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  d:  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  114;  Flavion  u.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  385;  Britton  Cooperage  Co.' v.  C.  M.  &  St. 
P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  386;  388;  Price  v.  W.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 
3  R.  C.  467;  Milwaukee-Western  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909, 

3  R.  C.  517;  Kemmeter  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  518; 
Selle  iSc  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  595;  Kenfield 
&  Lamoreaux  Lhr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  600; 
Ahnapee  Veneer  &  Seating  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
106;  Ahnapee  Veneer  &  Seating  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &.  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  4  R.  G.  109;  Johns-Manville  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 

4  R.  G.  114;  Ideal  Lbr.  &  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
171;  Pabst  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  173;  Gund  Brwg. 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N^.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  190;  Shaw  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  319;  Ewer  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  G.  331;  Higgins  Spring  &  Axle  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  G.  384;  Pabst  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  cfc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  403; 
Kaiser  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  196;  Bell  &  Co. 
V.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  430;  Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  645;  Sprague  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  666;  Buswell  Lbr.  &  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  217;  Wis.  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  16;  Wis.  River  Paper  &  Pulp  Co.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  64;  Milwaukee  Bag  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  182;  A.  H.  Stange  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St. 
P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  725. 

Failure  to  apply  the  lowest  rate  applicable  to  intermediate  point. 

105.  Bacon  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  62. 

Failure  to  enforce  classification  rule  at  time  shipment  was  oifered. 

106.  New  Richmond  R.  M.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908, 
2  R.  G.  610. 

Failure  to  make  allowance  for  car  stakes. 

107.  Yawkey-Bissel  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.21; 
Torrey  Cedar  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  185;  Pulp  Wood  Co. 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  144;  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  «&  S.  5.  M.  i?.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  84;  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  204;  John  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  542. 

Failure  to  protect  an  intermediate  point. 

108.  Torrey  Cedar  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  185;  Sprague 
Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  289. 

Failure  to  protect  an  intermediate  point  in  a  rate  which  was  sub- 
sequently extended   to  cover  the   more  distant  points. 

109.  Wolfv.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  375;  Peshtigo  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  188. 


378 Reparation. — Refunds 

c.    REFUND    FROM    CHARGE   CAUSED   BY — Continued 

Failure  to  protect  an  intermediate  point  in  a  rate  which  was  sub- 
sequently extended  to  cover  such  point. 

110.  Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
700;  Northern  Wood  Co.  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  706,  708; 
Osceola  Mill  6c  Elevator  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
759;  Kenfield-Lamoreaux  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  294. 

Failure  to  protect  intermediate  points  in  a  joint  rate,  which  was 
subsequently  extended  to  cover  such  points. 

111.  Wright  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  175. 

Failure  to  protect  an  intermediate  point  in  a  through  rate,  which 
was  subsequently  extended  to  cover  such  point. 

112.  Tinkham  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  4  R.  G.  329;  Oshkosh 
Fuel  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  199. 

Failure  to  provide  for  the  absorption  of  switching  charges  as  pre- 
viously in  effect  and  subsequently  made  effective. 

113.  Paffv.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  160;  Morgan  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  165. 

Improper  classification. 

114.  Howey  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  504;  Jefferson 
Brick  &  Tile  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  553. 

Shipper's  error  in  routing. 

115.  Wis.  Coal  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  339;  Joannes  Bros: 
Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  422. 

Shipper's  error  with  respect  to  shipping  directions. 

116.  Milwaukee  Western  Malt  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al, 
1910,  5  R.  C.  437. 

d.  REFUND  FROM  DEMURRAGE  CHARGE. 

Accrued  through  negligence  of  carrier. 

117.  G.  W.  Jones  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  388. 

Based  on  unreasonable  delay  in  providing  certain  track  facilities. 

118.  Greiling  Bros.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  449. 

Ordered  on  basis  of  free  time  allowance  under  statute. 

119.  Krull  Commission  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  60. 

Ordered  on  basis  of  switching  rate  established  bj    order  of  the 
Commission. 

120.  Ruedebusch  v.  C.  M.  &  Si  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  248;  1914, 
14  R.  G.  92. 

c.  REFUND  OF  DRAYAGE  CHARGE. 

Commission  without  jurisdiction. 

121.  Deeves  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,^8  R.  G.  507. 


Reparation. — Refunds  379 


f.   REFUND   FROM   EXCESS    CHARGE  ORDERED   ON   BASIS   OF. 

Actual  weight  of  shipment. 

122.  Kraft,  Radtke  &  Quilling  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1913,  13  R.  G.  393. 

Commodity  rate  in  eflFect  in   the  opposite  direction  and  subse- 
quently  made   effective. 

123.  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.  m'.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
360;  Listman  Millg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  207;  Menasha 
Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  586;  Stowell  Mfg.  & 
Fdry.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  316;  Marinette  &  Menominee 
Box  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  37. 

Difference  between  the  rate  charged  and  the  rate  found  reason- 
able. 

124.  Pennsylvania  Coal  &  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  746. 

Distance  rates  previously  established  by  otder  of  the  Commission. 

125.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  393;  Waukesha  Lime  <Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  579;  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co. 
e/  al,  1914,  14  R.  G.  718. 

Joint   commodity  rates   established   by   order   of  Commission. 

126.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912, 
9  R.  G.  127. 

Joint  commodity  rate  reestablished  by  order  of  the  Commission. 

127.  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911, 
8  R.  G.  58. 

Joint  rate  established  by  order  of  the  Commission. 

128.  Parfrey  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  450;  Eckhart 
jf.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  4  R.  G.  781;  Mears-Slayton  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
Wis.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  8  R.  G.  247;  Mayer  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al,  1911,  8  R.  G.  328;  John  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al,  1914, 14  R.  G.  823;  John  Week  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al, 

1914,  15  R.  G.  53. 

f 

Joint  rate  for  shortest  available  route. 

129'.  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  647,  655. 

Joint  rate  in  effect  on  a  competing  line  and  subsequently  made 
effective. 

130.  Owen  Sc  Bro.  Co.  v.  M.  Si  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  43. 

Joint  rate  previously  established  by  order  of  the  Commission. 

131.'  Schwoegler  Sc  Kelly  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
635;  Brittingham  Sc  Young  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
528. 


380       Reparation. — Refunds 

f.  REFUND  FROM  EXCESS  CHARGE  ORDERED  ON  BASIS 

OF — Continued  y  ' 

Joint  rate  subsequently  established  by  order  of  the  Commission. 

132.  Schwoegler  &  Kelly  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  287; 
Parfrey  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  551. 

Joint  rate  subsequently  made  efifective. 

133.  Brittingham  &  Young  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1910,  4  R.  C.  772;  New  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Co.  v.  F.  &  N.  E.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C-  272;  Creamery  Package  Mfg.  Co.  u.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  761. 

Joint  rate  subsequently  made  effective  in  order  to  meet  a  through 
rate  on  a  competing  line. 

134.  Somo  River  Lhr.  Co.  v.  W.  cfc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  4  R.  G.  485; 
Badger  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910,  5  R.  G.  729. 

Lower  commodity  rate. 

135.  Ripon  Veneer  Sc  Box  Works  v..  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
484. 

Lower  joint  commodity  rate. 

136.  Gablowsky  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  8  R.  G.  544. 

Lower  rate  previously  in  effect. 

137.  Hammond-Chandler  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 

1912,  10  R.  G.  564. 

Rate  for  shortest  available  route. 

138.  Engesether  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912,  8  R.  G.  504; 
Reiibrock  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
447;  Steven  Sc  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
131;  Hopwood  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  12  R.  G.  217;  Kraft, 
Radtke  Sc  Quilling  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  13  R.  G.  393; 
Wis.  Sugar  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1915, 15  R.  G.  650. 

Rate  in  legal  effect. 

139.  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  518;  Mason  &  Martin  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  74; 
Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.'  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  805. 

Reasonable  minimum  weight  suj^sequently  made  effective. 

140.  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  368. 

Reasonable  rate  erroneously  omitted  from  tariff. 

141.  Selle  Sc  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  G.  225. 

Reasonable  rate  established  by  order  of  the  Commission. 

142.  Semrad  Bros.  Sc  Pusch  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al, 

1913,  12  R.  G.  236;  Capital  Fence  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  12 
R.  G.  756;  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  cfc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  a/.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  368;  Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  690;  Ruder  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G:  508. 


Reparation. — Refunds 381 

Reasonable  rate  in  effect  on  a  competing  line. 

143.  Cook  &  Brown  Lime  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  298; 
Barnes  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  478;  So.  Wis.  Sand  <Sc 
Gravel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  380. 

Reasonable  rate  in  effect  on  a  competing  line  and  subsequently 
made  effective. 

144.  Pabst  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  766;  Cant- 
well  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  293;  Emerald  Cooperative 
Creamery  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <fc  0.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  683;  Rowland  cfc 
Son  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  163;  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co. 
v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  167. 

Reasonable  rate  previously  established  by  order  of  the  Commis- 
sion. 

145.  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  271;  Wis. 
Box  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  323;  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  327;  Waiisau  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  335;  Wausau  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co,  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  G.  337;  Heinemann  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
356;  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  405;  Wausau  Box  Sc 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  457;  Wausau  Box  Sc  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  459;  Goodwillie  Bros.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  461;  Goodwillie  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  463;  Wis.  Box  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  768; 
Duluth-Superior  Millg.  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  459;  Higgins 
Spring  Sc  Axle  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  36;  Cumberland 
Fruit  Pkg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  158;  Nordberg 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  648. 

Reasonable  rate   previously  in  effect   and   subsequently   reestab- 
lished. 

146.  Yawkey-Bissel  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  209; 
Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  222;  Rust  Owen  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  12;  A.  H.  Stange  Co.  v.  C.  M. 
Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  274;  Cumberland  Fruit  Pkg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  287;  Pierce  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  754. 

Reasonable  rate  subsequently  made  effective. 

147.  Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G. 
116;  Steven  Sc  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  131; 
Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  589;  Chippewa 
Lbr.  Sc  Boom  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  607;  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  620;  Uniform  Stave  Sc  Package 
Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  193;  Manson  Sc  Weinfeld  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  362;  Kenfield  Sc  Lamoreaux  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  Sc  O.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  465;  Wright  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1910;  4  R.  G.  770;  Osceola  Millg.  Sc  Elevator  Co.  u.  M.  Si.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R. 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  291;  Ahnapee  Veneer  Sc  Seating  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  643;  Phoenix  Wall  Paper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M.St.  P.  & 
5.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  182;  Block-PoUak  Iron  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 


382 Reparation. — Refunds  

R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  205; Kaufmann  &  Co.  v'.W.Sc N.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
497;  Morton  Salt  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  499; 
Block-Pollak  Iron  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <fc  5/.  P.  i?.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  548;  Oshkosh 
Fuel  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  669;  Edward  Hines 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  14;  Standard  Lime  & 
Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  149;  Brown  Land  &  Lbr.  Co. 
V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  581;  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co., 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  774;  Clark  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R. 
Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  38;  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1911,  8  R.  G.  78;  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8 
R.  G.  697;  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
39;  Goodman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  41; 
Schneider  v.  S.  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  64;  Mitchell  Lewis  Motor  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  709;  Oilman  Mfg.  Co.  v.  S.  M. 
Sc  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  134;  Kenfield-Lamoreaux  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  192;  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  701;  Hale-Mylrea  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1913,  12  R.  G.  709;  International  Harvester  Corporation  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  640;  White  Rock  Quarry  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1914,  13  R.  G.  669;  Milwaukee  Sand  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  G.  Q71;  Moritz  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  684;  Wausau 
Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  698;  Wausau  Advance- 
ment Assn.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  772;  Owen  &  Bro.  Co.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  79;  Big  Four  Canning  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  84;  Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  188;  Carl  Frontz  v.  Mineral  Point  Sc  N.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  217;  Ruder  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14 
R.  G.  508;  Selle  Sc  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  544; 
Northwestern  Iron  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  577;  Wau- 
kesha Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  G.  579; 
Johnson  Sc  Hill  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  752; 
Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  43;  International 
Harvester  Corp.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  164;  Pierce  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  473;  Ellis  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  ScSt.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  527. 

f.  REFUND  ON  EXCESS  CHARGED  ORDERED  ON  BASIS    OF— Continued 

m 

Reasonable  joint  rate   in  eflfect   on   competing  lines   and   subse- 
quently made  eflfective. 

148.  Barney  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  775. 

Revised  concentration  rates. 

149.  Torrey  Cedar  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  461. 

Rule  providing  for  absorption  of  switching  charges  as  previously 
in  eflfect  and  subsequently  made  eflfective. 

150.  Blodgett  Milling  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  377. 

Switching  rate  substituted  by  order  of  the  Commission  for  the 
distance  rate  previously  in  eflfect. 

151.  Summit  Stove  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R   G.  186. 


Retroactive  Orders  383 


g.  REFUND  FROM  EXPRESS  CHARGE. 

Due  to  change  in  construction  placed  on  classification  without 
due  notice  to  shipper. 

152.  Gross  v.  U.  S.  Express  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  342. 

Ordered  on  basis  of  the  general  special  rate  reestablished  by  order 
of  the  Commission. 

153.  M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  ei  at.  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  et  al.,  1911, 
8  R.  C.  1. 

REPORT  OF  ACCIDENTS. 

01)ligation  of  street  railway  companies,  doing  both  urban  and  interurban 
business,  to  report  accidents  to  the  Commission,,  see  Street  Rail- 
ways, 1. 

RESERVES. 

Depreciation  reserve  charge,  see  Depreciation,  13-25. 
Reserve  for  injuries  and  damages,  allowance  for,  see  Injuries  and  Dam- 
ages, 1. 

RESHIPMENT. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  195. 
Conditions  under  which  reshipment  is  allowed  for  small  additional  charge, 

see  Rates — Railroad,  26-40. 

RESIDENCE  RATES. 

Business  and  residence  rates  for  telephone  utilities,  see  Rates — Tele- 
phone, 3,  5-7. 

RESTORATION  OF  HIGHWAY. 

Re,storation  and  maintenance  of  highway,  see  Railroads,  45-51. 

RETENTION   AND    DEVELOPMENT   OF    BUSINESS. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  43-44. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water,  49-55. 

RETROACTIVE  ORDERS. 

Railroad  Commission  without  power  to  issue  retroactive  orders,  see  Rail- 
road Commission,  123. 


384  Return. — In  General 


RETURN. 

Basis  of  reasonable  return,  value  of  property,  see  Valuation,  1-13. 


I,      IN  GENERAL. 
II.     PROPERTY  EMPLOYED   IN   COMMON   CARRIERS. 

III.  PROPERTY  EMPLOYED  IN  A  PUBLIC  OR  QUASI-PUBLIC  ENTER- 

PRISE. 

IV.  PROPERTY  EMPLOYED   IN   PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

V.     RATE  OF  RETURN  ON  INVESTMENT  IN  A  PUBLIC  OR  QUASI- 
PUBLIC  ENTERPRISE. 
VI.     RATE   OF  RETURN   ON  INVESTMENTS  IN  A  PUBLIC  UTILITY 
ENTERPRISE. 
VII.      RELATION    OF   NOMINAL    RETURN    TO    CAPITALIZATION. 
VIII.     WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A   REASONABLE   RETURN.      / 

a.  For  public  utilities.  c.   For  street  railways. 

b.  For  railroads. 


I.     IN  GENERAL. 
Nature  of. 

1.  The  return  is  the  excess  of  the  gross  earnings  over  the  operating 
expenses,  the  latter  including  all  expenses  for  labor,  fuel  and  other  supplies, 
salaries  of  officers,  taxes,  maintenance  and  depreciation  of  property  and 
interest.  The  measure  of  this  excess,  providing  the  accounts  are  a  true 
statement  of  the  business,  is  the  margin  within  which  rate  adjustments 
are  possible.    City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  17. 

II.  PROPERTY  EMPLOYED  IN  COMMON  CARRIERS. 

Owner  entitled  to  reasonable  return. 

2.  Under  the  law  the  carriers  are  entitled  to  a  reasonable  compensa- 
tion for  the  services  they  render.  That  is,  under  ordinary  circumstances 
they  are  entitled  to  rates  that  will  yield  a  fair  return  upon  a  fair  valuation 
of  the  property  and  facilities  employed.  Noble  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  & 
0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  767,  775. 

Reasonable  return  to  owner  necessary. 

3.  Ordinarily  neither  a  legislature  nor  a  commission  created  by  it 
can  fix  rates  so  low  as  to  deprive  the  carrier  of  the  right  to  earn  its  operating 
expenses  and  a  fair  return  on  the  reasonable  value  of  its  investment,,  as 
such  action  would  be  violative  of  the  XIV.  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  validity  of  legislative-made  rates,  and  of 
those  made  by  a  Commission  duly  authorized  to  make  them,  stand  on 
the  same  footing  before  the  courts.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1907,  ).  R.  C.  324,  337-346. 

III.  PROPERTY  EMPLOYED  IN  A  PUBLIC  OR  QUASI-PUBLIC 

ENTERPRISE. 

Owner  entitled  to  reasonable  return. 

4.  It  is  a  principle  well  established  and  invariably  supported  by  the 
sound  reason  of  the  law,  that  a  person  or  corporation  employing  property 


Return. — Rate  of,  on  investm.  in  public,  etc.,  enterprise  385 

in  a  public  or  quasi  public  enterprise,  such  as  that  of  a  telephone  company, 
is  entitled  to  earn  a  reasonable  return  upon  the  value  of  such  property. 
The  telephone  subscriber  has  placed  at  his  use  the  property  of  the  telephone 
company,  and  it  is  no  more  than  right  that  he  should  pay  a  fair  amount 
for  such  use,  just  as  he  would  expect  to  pay  a  fair  amount  for  the  use  of 
money  which  went  into  the  property  if  he  were  to  borrow  the  money 
instead  of  the  use  of  the  property.  In  re  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
534,  546-547. 

5.  The  law  provides  in  substance  that  under  normal  conditions 
the  carriers  are  entitled  to  such  compensation  for  their  services  that 
their  receipts  from  this  source  as  a  whole  will  cover  the  necessary  operating 
expenses,  including  reasonable  returns  upon  their  investment.  Ringle 
et  al.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1911,  7  R.  C.  170,  180. 

IV.  PROPERTY  EMPLOYED  ^N  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

Owner  entitled  to  reasonable  return. 

6.  When  private  capital  is  invested  in  public  utilities,  there  is  at 
least  a  tacit  understanding  to  the,  effect  that  the  investors  will  receive 
a  reasonable  return  upon  their  capital  as  soon  as  conditions  warrant  it. 
That  this  is  the  case  is  self-evident,  whether  expressed  or  not,  and  regard- 
less of  such  errors  of  judgment  as  sometimes  creep  into  undertakings  of 
this  nature.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  investors  to  furnish  a  reasonably 
efficient  plant  and  management  and  a  reasonably  adequate  service. 
When  these  obligations  are  fulfilled,  they  are  ordinarily  entitled  to  a 
reasonable  return  upon  their  investment  and  services.  Hill  et  al.  v. 
Antigo  W.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  711;  7/7  re  Appl.  North  Milwaukee  Lt. 
<Sc  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  89,  97;  Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
370,  375. 

Reasonable  return  to  owner  necessary. 

7.  It  devolves  upon  the  Commission  to  regard  the  demand  for  a 
reasonable  return  upon  actual  investment  and  for  services  rendered  on 
the  part  of  the  utility,  or  fundamental  in  establishing  and  maintaining 
adequate  service  for  the  community — on  the  assumption,  always,  that 
ordinary  intelligence  and  honesty  have  been  shown  in  establishing  the 
utility.  More  than  the  welfare  of  any  given  utility  or  community  under 
consideration  is  involved  in  this.  If  the  principle  were  unwisely  dis- 
regarded in  any  one  case,  it  would  be  an  effectual  bar  to  the  securing  of 
funds  to  develop  new  utilities  or  improve  existing  ones  throughout  the 
entire  state.  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
344,  346. 

V.  RATE   OF   RETURN  ON  INVESTMENTS  IN  A  PUBLIC    OR 

QUASI-PUBLIC  ENTERPRISE. 

Desirability  of  "margin"  between  gross  revenues  and  tbe  aggre- 
gate of  operating  expenses  and  fixed  charges. 

8.  In  ordinary  cases  to  waste  the  margin  between  the  amount 
sufficient  to  assure  a  fair  return  on  the  value  of  the  property,  plus  the 

13 


386  Return.— Rate  of,  on  investm.  in  public,  etc,  enterprise 

amount  of  the  fixed  charges  and  operating  expenses  and  the  gross  receipts, 
is  to  waste  the  fund  in  which  the  whole  pubUc  is  interested.  This  should 
never  be  done  for  the  benefit  of  the  few  as  against  the  interests  of  the 
many.  It  is  also  to  be  considered  that  this  margin  ought  not  ordinarily 
to  be  exhausted  or  swept  away  by  orders  or  requirements  of  the  Railroad 
Commission  as  fast  as  accumulated,  because  human  nature  or  railroad 
nature  is  such  that  no  one  will  long  economize  on  operating  or  other  ex- 
penses if  his  economy  only  furnishes  a  larger  basis  for  further  exactions. 
(Minneapolis,  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Commission  of  Wis- 
consin, 1908,  136  Wis.  146,  167.)  Payne  et  al  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  C.  1,  62-63;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  EI.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.lC.  501,  625;  Hawes  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C. 
565,  569. 

VI.    RATE    OF   RETURN    ON    INVESTMENTS    IN    A    PUBLIC 

UTILITY  ENTERPRISE. 

Dependent  upon  particular  circumstances. 

9.  The  rate  of  return  which  must  or  should  be  allowed  on  whatever 
investment  may  be  determined  to  exist,  obviously  depends  both  upon  the 
class  of  the  utility  enterprise — whether  gas,  electric,  water,  telephone,  etc. 
— and  the  character  of  the  individual  plant  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  is  operated  within  the  class.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  C,  1,  63. 

Desirability  of  "margin"  between  gross  revenues  and  the  aggre- 
gate of  operating  expenses .  and  fixed  charges — Telephone 
utilities. 

10.  Even  though  the  patronage  and  revenues  of  a  telephone  company 
remain  stable  and  business  increases  in  times  of  depression,  the  telephone 
business,  in  the  present  state  of  the  art,  nevertheless  remains  a  business 
subject  to  great  risks  and  uncertainties.  There  can  bie  no  question 
regarding  the  necessity  of  maintaining  a  margin  between  the  gross  revenues 
and  the  aggregate  of  operating  expenses  and  fixed  charges  wherever 
possible  in  order  that  contingencies  may  be  properly  met  in  the  interests 
of  good  service.     Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  67. 

Investment  in  advance  of  needs  of  community. 

11.  It  would  seem  that  when  a  utility  undertakes  to  build  considerably 
in  advance  of  the  needs  of  the  community,  the  utility  can  hardly  expect 
a  large  return  upon  this  investment  immediately.  On  the  ^ther  hand, 
if  consumers  can  be  induced  to  pay  a  profit  on  this  investment,  it  would 
appear  advantageous  for  the  utility  to  invest  in  equipment  which  will 
meet  demands  far  into  the  future.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El. 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  347. 

Rate  of  return  under  abnormal  conditions. 

12.  The  fact  that  consumers  will  not  pay  a  rate  which  will  enable 
the  utility  to  earn  what  would  ordinarily  constitute  a  reasonable  rate  of 
return  upon  its  property,  may  not  affect  the  justice  of  such  a  charge  or 


Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return        387 

the  legal  right  of  the  utility  to  charge  such  rates,  but  the  fact  that  the 
utility  has  a  legal  right  to  a  reasonable  return  upon  its  property  will  not 
prove  of  much  value  if  it  loses  a  large  part  of  its  business  because  of  the 
presence  of  competition  or  the  inability  of  consumers  to  pay  enough  to 
ensure  the  company  such  a  return.  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  556-557. 

Stability  of,  under  Public  Utilities  Law. 

13.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe,  what  the  testimony  in  .this  case 
suggests,  that  the  operation  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law  will,  eventually, 
result  in  greater  stability  in  the  investment  in  public  utility  enterprises, 
and  that  this  will  be  followed  by  a  relatively  lower  rate  of  interest,  may 
reasonably  be  expected  from  the  nature  of  the  competitive  forces  operating 
upon  capital.  However,  until  experience  has  actually  demonstrated  it, 
at  least  on  a  limited  scale,  no  action  of  far  reaching  consequences  can  be 
prudently  and  justly  based  upon  it.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  C.  1,  63-64. 

VII.  RELATION  OF  NOMINAL  RETURN  TO  CAPITALIZATION. 

Addition  of  intangible  value  to  capitalization. 

14.  Obviously  the  nominal  rate  of  return  will  decrease  as  the  amount 
of  "intangibles"  added  to  the  capital  is  increased  and  if  enough  is  added, 
net  returns  will  apparently  disappear  entirely  and  nominal  deficits  take 
the  place  of  existing  rates  of  profit.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  C.  1,  65. 

« 

VIII.  WHAT  CONSTITUTES  A  REASONABLE  RETURN. 

a.    FOR   PUBLIC   UTILITIES. 

Influence  of  operating  conditions. 

15.  The  amount  which  constitutes  a  reasonable  return  upon  the 
investment  may  also  vary  with  both  local  and  general  conditions.  In  a 
general  way  the  reasonable  return  may  be  said  to  be  that  rate  of  return  at 
which  capital  and  business  ability  can  be  had  for  development.  Theoreti- 
cally it  cannot  be  lower  than  this,  for  in  that  case  no  capital  would  enter  the 
field.  To  determine  what  is  reasonable  in  any  given  case,  is  a  matter  of 
investigation  and  judgment.  In  re  Menominee  &  Marinette  Lt.  &  Tr. 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  793;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  717,  734. 

16.  There  may  be  utilities  which  are  operating  under  such  conditions 
that  no  rates  that  can  be  collected  from  the  consumers  would  be  sufficient 
to  meet  the  above  named  charges.  In  fact,  such  utilities  are  met  with 
more  frequently  than  might  be  expected.  This  unfortunate  situation 
may  be  due  to  the  lack  of  a  sufficient  number  of  customers,  to  mistakes  in 
construction  and  excessive  cost  of  the  same,  and  to  many  other  causes. 
Such  utilities,  in  order  to  be  paying  concerns,  would  require  higher  rates 
for  their  services  than  their  customers  are  willing  to  pay  rather  than 
forego  these  services,  and  the  collection  of  such  rates  is,  of  course,  out  of 


388         Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return 

the  question.  Utilities  of  which  this  is  true,  cannot  be  subject  to  any 
general  rules.  They  can  be  dealt  with  only  in  the  light  of  the  conditions 
which  surround  them.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  cfc 
EL  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  625,  626. 

a.    FOR   PUBLIC   UTILITIES.— Continued 

Legislative  and  judicial  determination. 

17.  The  statutes  provide  that  the  rates  of  return  upon  the  investment 
must  be  reasonable,  but  do  not  specifically  state  what  the  reasonable  rate 
should  be.  They  further  provide  that  it  is  the  duty  of  this  Commission 
to  enforce  these  statutes,  or  to  determine  the  reasonable  rate.  The  deci- 
sions of  the  court  are  confined  to  the  determination  as  to  whether  the 
rates  thus  found  by  this  Commission  are  reasonable  or  whether  they 
violate  constitutional  rights.  While  neither  the  statutes  nor  the  decisions 
are  thus  furnishing  specific  directions  for  the  guidance  of  the  Commission 
in  carrying  out  its  duties,  they  contain  certain  rules  which,  in  a  general 
way,  limit  the  range  within  which  the  reasonable  rate  should  be  found. 
State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
501,  624-625. 

Relation  of  return  to  capitalization. 

18.  Excessive  capitalization  can  not  justify  higher  than  reasonable 
returns  for  public  utilities.  The  fact  that  excessive  amounts  of  securities 
may  have  been  issued,  and  the  further  fact  that  the  rates  may  have  been 
high  enough  to  yield  interest,  and  dividends  on  the  same,  would  not 
justify  the  continuance  of  these  rates  if  they  had  been  found  to  be 
unreasonable  in  other  respects.  To  hold  otherwise  would  seem  to  be 
contrary  to  public  policy.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C. 
623,  726-727. 

Relation  of  return  to  public  utilities  and  to  private  enterprises. 

19.  In  determining  the  force  of  the  arguments  as  to  the  low  rates  of 
interest  obtained  by  investors  in  private  business  enterprises,  the  matter 
must  be  viewed  from  the  other  side.  The  question  would  then  be — 
should  there  still  be  a  close  relation  between  the  rate  of  return  to  the 
water  company  and  that  to  other  private  investors  if  the  latter  were 
obtaining  several  times  the  rate  now  received,  say  12  to  15  per  cent  or 
more.  It  is  very  doubtful  that  any  such  rule  would  be  admitted  to  work 
both  ways.     In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  721,  726. 

Return  during  experimental  period. 

20.  To  permit  relatively  high  rates  during  the  experimental  period 
of  public  utilities  is  often  both  necessary  and  in  line  with  good  policy 
in  other  respects.  Without  it  the  necessary  capital  may  not  be  forth- 
coming at  all.  In  the  long  run  the  interest  of  a  community  or  state  is 
usually  best  subserved  by  granting  such  terms  to  the  investors  that  will 
assure  a  free  and  unrestricted  flow  into  any  undertaking  or  industry. 
Nor  is  the  state  estopped  from  reducing  the  rates  or  from  changing  the 

,     terms  to  a- reasonable  basis  whenever  other  conditions  warrant  such  action. 
Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  726. 


Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return        389 

Return  for  growing  utilities. 

21.  For  growing  utilities  where  rate  adjustments  can  not,  in  the 
very  nature  of  things,  be  of  very  frequent  occurrence  and  for  which, 
owing  to  the  law  of  increasing  returns,  the  net  earnings  both  actually 
and  relatively  are  gradually  increasing,  fairness  often  demands  that  the 
returns  allowed  for  the  first  year  or  at  the  time  the  rates  are  adjusted 
should  be 'below  rather  than  above  the  normal  figures.  In  re  Service  of 
T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  of  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178,  240. 

Returns  for  interest. 

22.  The  rate  of  interest  that  should  be  allowed  on  the  investment 
in  public  utility  plants  is  a  matter  that  has  not  been  definitely  fixed.  By 
many  authorities  it  is  placed  at  from  6  to  8  per  cent,  and  by  others,  again 
as  high  as  10  to  15  per  cent  on  the  cost  of  the  plant.  Those  who  invest 
their  money  in  undertakings  of  this  character  are  undoubtedly  entitled 
to  interest  at  the  current  rates,  and  possibly  something  besides,  to  cover 
risks  and  contingencies.  This  seems  to  be  the  position  of  the  courts 
and  it  is  perhaps  necessary  in  practice.  Unless  this  is  allowed,  investors 
would  not  be  likely  to  put  their  money  into  such  plants.  In  re  Appl. 
Merrill  Railway  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  148,  158;  In  re  Appl.  Chippewa 
Valley  Ry.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  311,  321;  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville 
E.  L.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  392,  407. 

23.  Interest  is  justifiable  because  of  the  importance  of  capital  in 
production,  and  necessary  because  without  it  capital  cannot  be  had  for 
industrial  and  commercial  purposes.  The  rate  of  interest,  as  determined 
by  economic  forces  over  which  the  individual  borrowers  have  little  or 
no  control,  and  the  effect  of  these  forces,  are  often  best  measured  by  the 
prevailing  rate  in  the  various  undertakings  where  money  is  obtained  on 
the  best  terms  that  can  be  had.  These  terms,  in  such  cases,  usually 
take  into  account  the  risks  involved,  the  trouble  of  looking  after  the 
loans,  the  readiness  by  which  the  loans  can  be  converted  into  cash  or 
withdrawn,  and  other  factors  that  affect  the  rates  of  interest.  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  634. 

24.  It  is  almost  common-place  to  state,  that  capital  is  subject  to  the 
accepted  laws  of  competition,  and  that  the  gross  rate  of  return  which  it 
can  command  depends  upon  competitive  forces.  The  competition  of 
capital  among  different  industries  and  localities  in  the  same  country, 
as  well  as  the  competition  of  capital  among  foreign  countries,  is  well 
understood.  These  national  and  international  competitive  forces  control 
the  rate  of  interest  everywhere,  including  Wisconsin.  What  the  par- 
ticular rate  of  interest  is  or  will  be,  is  purely  a  matter  of  experience. 
The  money  market  reflects  and  determines  it.  There  ^re  great  demands 
for  investment  funds  in  the  Orient,  Africa,  South  America,  in  the  islands 
of  the  Pacific  Ocean,  in  Alaska,  in  the  West  Indies  and  other  places, 
not  to  speak  of  demands  at  home.  Wisconsin  cannot  segregate  itself 
and  stand  in  isolation  as  if  exempt  from  these  forces.  It  is  fully  and  com- 
pletely subject  to  them.  One  of  these  forces  which  is  active  in  Wisconsin, 
but  not  in  many  other  localities,  is  the  Public  Utilities  Law.  Payne 
et  al.  V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  1,  63. 


390         Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return 

a.    FOR   PUBLIC    UTILITIES. — Continued 

Returns  for  interest. 

25.  Older  and  better  established  utilities  can  secure  money  for 
extensions  at  lower  rates  than  new  utilities.  This  applies  also  in  renewing 
their  bond  issues  and  other  loans.  In  many  cases  they  are  even  able  to 
refund  outstanding  bond  issues  at  much  more  favorable  rates  of  interest 
than  the  rates  paid  in  the  past.  In  view  of  this  it  is  clear  that  there  should 
also  be  a  gradual  decline  in  the  rates  of  interest  of  such  plants.  This  is 
also  an  important  fact,  for  it  is  undoubtedly  the  case  that  the  rate  of 
interest  actually  paid  is  one  of  the  elements  that  should  be  taken  into 
account  in  considering  all  interest  allowances  on  the  investment.  Hill 
et  al.  V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  762. 

26.  The  interest  proper  should  include  only  the  amount  that  is  paid  for 
the  use  of  the  capital  employed.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  W.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C. 
623,  764;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  240. 

27.  The  determination  of  what  is  a  proper  rate  of  return  upon  the 
reasonable  value  of  the  property  is  dependent  largely  upon  local  conditions 
which  surround  the  plant  and  may  be  expected  to  vary  with  each  particular 
case.  Payne  v.  Wis.  Tel  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  63;  In  re  Appl.  North 
Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  89,  97;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v. 
Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  626;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M. 
E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  240. 

28.  The  rate  of  interest  upon  the  investment  that  should  be  allowed 
for  public  utilities  is  a  question  that  largely  depends  upon  the  conditions 
by  which  each  plant  is  surrounded.  Undertakings  of  this  character  are 
not  subject  to  the  ordinary  competitive  conditions  and  this  tends  to 
materially  reduce  the  risks  of  the  business.  In  view  of  these  facts  it 
would  seem  that  the  utilities  of  the  kind  involved  here  are  not  entitled 
to  as  high  rates  of  interest  as  ordinary. industrial  and  commercial  enter- 
prises that  are  operating  under  competitive  conditions.  Under  the  law, 
however,  public  utilities  are  entitled  to  reasonable  returns  upon  a  fair 
valuation  of  their  plants,  provided  such  returns  may  be  had  under  rates 
for  the  services  rendered,  that  are  reasonable  in  other  respects.  In  re 
Appl.  North  Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  89,  97. 

29.  Interest  is  dependent  upon  the  location  and  nature  of  the  under- 
taking, the  security,  the  degree  of  convertibility,  the  amount  of  risk, 
skill  and  supervision  necessary  to  place  the  loan,  and  other  factors.  In 
the  public  utility  business  it  is  dependent  also  upon  the  competition 
for  available  investment  resources  by  other  types  of  industry.  Neces- 
sarily the  interest  rate  is  less  in  a  well  established,  well  managed  under- 
taking than  when  the  business  is  new  and  just  being  placed  upon  a  paying 
basis.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  W.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  762;  In  re  Menominee 
&  Marinette  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  793;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co. 
V.  Madison  G.  Sz  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  629;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  W.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  482,  506;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  1,  240-241. 

30.  The  rate  of  interest  at  which  capital  can  be  had  is  influenced  by 
the  supply  and  demand  for  loanable  funds;  by  the  risks  involved;  by  the 
care  and  work  required  in  placing  the  loans  and  in  looking  after  them; 
by  whether  the  loans  are  readily  transferred  or  converted  into  cash; 


Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return        391 

and  by  other  local  and  general  conditions.     Superior  Comml.  Club  el  al. 
D.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  758. 

31.  As  the  rate  of  interest  or  profits  is  largely  dependent  upon  risks, 
it  would  seem  to  follow  that  the  rate  of  interest  should  be  lower  in  monop- 
olistic than  in  competitive  enterprises.  This  position  is  also  strengthened 
when,  as  for  public  utilities,  reasonable  returns  are  recognized  by  law. 
In  re  Menominee  &  Marinetle  Lt  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  819. 

32.  As  to  the  rate  of  interest  to  be  allowed,  there  is  reason  for  making 
a  distinction  between  privately  and  publicly  owned  utilities.  If  the 
same  rate  of  return  were  to  be  allowed,  other  things  being  equal,  the 
consumer  would  hardly  have  any  advantage  in  taking  service  from  a 
municipal  plant.  But  a  difTerence  in  the  rate  of  interest  will  give  him  all 
advantage,  outside  of  other  considerations.  In  the  present  case  the  city 
pays  from  3J/^  to  4  per  cent  interest  on  the  bonds  issued  to  cover  the 
water  plant.  A  private  plant  would  demand  at  least  6  per  cent  or  more. 
If  the  city  is  permitted  a  return  of  4  per  cent  on  the  investment,  the  saving 
in  interest  over  a  privately  owned  plant  on  a  6  per  cent  basis  amounts  to  a 
considerable  sum.  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
731,  745. 

Return  for  interest  and  profits. 

33.  As  to  what  constitutes  a  reasonable  rate  of  interest  and  profit 
upon  the  amount  invested  in  public  utilities  must  be  determined  by 
investigation.  Generally  speaking,  it  can  be  said  that  such  rates  depend 
upon  the  cost  of  obtaining  the  capital  and  the  business  skill  that  are 
required.  On  the  one  hand,  they  must  be  high  enough  to  secure  the 
necessary  capital  and  business  ability;  on  the  other  hand,  they  should 
not  be  so  high  as  to  be  unreasonable  to  the  consumers.  Hill  et  al.  v. 
Ant'igo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  751;  In  re  Menominee  &  Marinette 
Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  793-794;  State  Journal  Prig.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  626;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  482,  506;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co., 

1911,  6  R.  G.  353,  366;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  1,  240;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 

1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  758;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  G.  744,  747:  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee, 

1913,  13  R.  G.  178,  215. 

34.  "While  public  utilities  are  subject  to  many  conditions  that  tend 
to  increase  the  risks  under  which  their  business  is  carried  on,  they  are 
also  afforded  a  great  deal  of  protection  that  is  of  considerable  value  to  the 
investors.  This  protection  has  its  source  partly  in  legal  provisions,  and 
partly  in  the  fact  that,  after  all,  such  utilities  are  natural  monopolies 
and  are  engaged  in  furnishing  services  that  have  practically  become 
necessities  and  for  which  there  appear  to  be  no  effective  substitutes. 
While  the  investors  in  gas  and  electric  light  plants  are  exposed  to  certain 
hazards  or  risks,  these  risks,  while  greater  than  the  risks  which  obtain 
for  money  placed,  say,  in  trust  companies  and  good  mortgages,  are  not, 
on  the  whole,  as  great  as  those  which  obtain  in  ordinary  competitive 
enterprises.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  632. 


392         Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return 

a.    FOR    PUBLIC    UTILI\TIES. — Continued 

Return  for  profits — In  general. 

35.  Profits  are  now  acknowledged  to  be  a  peculiar  form  of  income 
which,  while  they  differ  from  rent,  wages  and  interest,  occupy  about  the 
same  rank  when  it  comes  to  their  fundamental  importance.  Profits 
are  a  surplus  over  and  above  the  expenses  of  production.  They  are 
usually  identified  as  the  balance  left  over  after  the  claims  of  all  other  factors 
have  been  satisfied,  and  as  the  income  that  goes  to  those  who  carry  on 
the  business.  Profits,  being  a  surplus,  are  not  determined  by  any  one  set 
of  principles.  They  are  the  result  of  the  many  forces  that  affect  the  prices 
at  which  the  products  sell  as  well  as  the  cost  at  which  they  are  produced. 
In  a  general  way,  however,  it  can  perhaps  be  said  that  profits  are  made 
up  of  the  wages  of  managements,  of  speculative  gains  from  the  risks 
which  have  to  be  assumed,  and  of  gains,  such  as  depend  on  chance  rather 
than  foresight,  and  of  gains  due  to  power  of  bargainitig  and  other  condi- 
tions of  this  nature,  including  monopoly  powers.  State  Journal  Prtg. 
Co.  et  al.  V.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  636-637;  In  re  Fond 
du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  482,  506;  In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  71,  100;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  C.  1,  240;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  309, 
315. 

36.  The  rate  of  profits  depends  upon  the  supply  of  business  capacity 
and  initiative,  the  risks  involved,  the  nature  of  the  undertakings,  and 
many  other  conditions.  These  rates,  therefore,  vary  as  between  the 
different  industries  and  the  different  classes  of  service.  They  even  vary 
as  between  the  various  public  utilities  in  the  same  place,  as  well  as  often 
also  between  like  utilities  in  different  localities.  Superior  Comml.  Club 
et  al.  V.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  758. 

37.  Generally  speaking,  there  is  more  risk  in  new  than  in  older 
utilities,  and  hence  it  also  follows  that  higher  profits  should  be  allowed 
for  the  former.  This  is  in  accordance  with  past  practice  and  sound 
economic  principles.  As  the  utilities  become  somewhat  older  in  the 
places  they  serve  and  attain  to  a  better  development  of  their  business, 
the  risks  involved  are  decreasing  and  with  such  decreases  in  the  risks 
it  is  only  fair  that  there  should  be  decreases  in  their  profits.  Hill  et  al.  v. 
Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  762. 

Gains  due  to  chance. 

38.  Profits  often  also  contain  other  elements  of  gain,  such,  for 
instance,  as  are  derived  from  unforeseen  and  fortuitous  circumstances. 
These  gains  would  rather  seem  to  be  the  result  of  chance.  They 
depend  upon  sudden  changes  in  the  demand,  temporary  shortage 
of  goods  on  the  part  of  competitors,  and  other  conditions  of  this  nature, 
rather  than  on  foresight  and  good  business  judgment.  Such  gains, 
nevertheless  are  pften  of  considerable  importance  and  may  be  of  material 
aid  in  the  Success  of  an  enterprise.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison 
Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  648. 

Gains  of  bargaining. 

39.  Profits  often  contain  an  element  of  gain  derived  from  superior 
power  of  bargaining.     The  gains  of  bargainings  are  also  often  of  the 


Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return        393 

greatest  importance.  They  consist  of  the  abihty  to  buy  at  the  lowest 
and  sell  at  the  highest  possible  prices.  In  actual  practice  it  often  happens 
that  the  shrewder  one  of  the  bargaining  parties  can  sell  for  higher  than 
his  lowest  price  and  buy  for  lower  prices  than  those  he  might  have  been 
ready  to  pay,  and  that  his  advantages  in  these  respects  are  simply  due  to 
the  fact  that  he  has  the  ability  to  drive  the  closest  bargains.  These 
powers  may  be  due  to  greater  natural  capacity,  to  better  and  more  com- 
plete information  upon  the  matters  involved,  and  to  several  other  causes. 
In  any  event,  it  is  a  valuable  power  to  possess  as  it  frequently  leads 
to  considerable  increases  in  the  profits  of  a  business.  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  648. 

Spe<Hilative  gains  from. risk  assumed. 

40.  There  are,  in  public  utilities  as  well  as  in  other  industries,  other 
than  competitive  risks.  In  the  construction  and  operation  of  such 
plants  many  accidents  may  be  met  with  and  many  mistakes  may  occur. 
While  some  of  these  might  have  been  foreseen  and  prevented,  others  may 
be  beyond  human  intelligence  and  grasp.  Many  examples  of  this  might 
be  mentioned.  Such  plants  may  also  be  injured  by  the  diversion  of  the 
growth  of  the  city  in  a  different  direction  from  that  expected  when  the 
plants  were  built;  by  the  failure  of  the  city  to  grow  as  rapidly  as  expected 
or  as  rapidly  as  the  plant  had  made  preparations  for;  by  the  failure  of  the 
city  to  grow  at  all,  as  well  as  by  decreases  in  its  population  and  industries; 
by  actions  of  the  local  and  other  authorities  by  which  unprofitable 
extension  may  be  required,  the  rates  reduced,  or  other  burdens  imposed, 
as  public  ^utilities  usually  have  to  furnish  adequate  service  whether  it 
is  paying  or  not.  In  the  case  of  such  losses  the  owners  or  employers  are 
the  first  to  suffer,  as  their  share  of  the  proceeds  is  not  fixed  but  has  to 
take  what  is  left  after  the  other  claims  have  been  met.  Wages,  salaries, 
supplies,  taxes,  interest  on  the  bonds  or  notes,  etc.,  must  be  paid  by  the 
employers  or  the  business  will  stop  or  go  into  receivership.  If  the 
earnings  are  only  large  enough  to  cover  these  outlays,  the  employer  will 
have  to  go  without  his  pay.  There  is  no  escape  from  this.  In  view  of 
these  and  other  facts,  it  is  clear  that  public  utilties  are  not  entirely 
exempted  from  risks  and  that,  therefore,  there  is  a  speculative  feature 
about  them  for  which  their  owners  are  entitled  to  something  in  the  way 
of  speculative  gains.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El. 
Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  644-645. 

Competitive  risks. 


41.  The  greatest  risks  usually  prevail  in  competitive  undertakings. 
In  industries  where  certain  monopoly  conditions  prevail,  such  as  public 
utilities,  competitive  risks  are,  of  course,  of  much  smaller  importance. 
State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501, 
643-644. 

42.  In  monopolistic  industries  the  average  profits  are  often  greater 
than  in  competitive  ones.  That  this  should  be  the  case  is  only  natural, 
for  the  former  control  the  supply  of  their  products  and  are,  therefore, 
quite  generally  in  position  to  charge  such  prices  for  the  same  as  will  yield 
the  greatest  net  returns.     In  fact,   the  chief  peculiarity  of  monopoly 


394         Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return. 

prices  is  found  in  the  control  which  monopoHes  have  over  the  supply. 
In  other  words,  the  former  are  governed  through  the  control  of  the  latter. 
In  competitive  industries  the  magnitude  of  the  profits  depends  upon  the 
managing  ability,  foresight,  bargaining,  skill  and  good  fortune  of  the 
employers.  In  monopolistic  industries  profits  rest  on  these  qualities  as 
well  as  on  an  additional  element  which  is  of  the  greatest  importance, 
namely,  the  ability  of  the  monopolist  to  control  the  supply,  which  usually 
results  in  fixing  prices  at  the  point  where,  as  said,  they  will  yield  the 
highest  net  profits;  competitive  profits  tend  towards  the  minimum; 
monopoly  profits  tend  towards  the  maximum.  The  latter  profits  are 
also  apt  to  have  greater  stability  than  the  former.  This  applies,  in 
varying  degrees,  to  all  kinds  of  monopoly  advantages,  or  to  public  utility 
corporations  as  well,  to  good  will,  patent  rights  and  other  privileges  of 
this  character.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  at.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  EL  Co., 
1910,4R.G.  501,645-646. 

a.    FOR   PUBLIC    UTILITIES. — Continued 

Returft  for  profits — Wages  of  management. 

43.  The  wages  of  management  and  superintendence  are  often  included 
in  the  operating  expenses.  This  is  especially  true  of  public  utilities  and 
of  most  other  corporations.  When  the  wages  so  paid  include  full  com- 
pensation for  such  technical  skill  and  ability  of  management,  including 
the  work  of  planning  the  operations  and  their  ultimate  direction  as  may 
be  required,  and  when  this  compensation  is  included  in  the  operating 
expenses,  then  it  is  also  clear  that  it  should  not  also  be  included  elsewhere 
among  the  outlays  or  under  any  other  head.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  at. 
V.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  637-638. 

44.  As  the  cost  of  the  management  bears  a  somewhat  close  relation 
to  the  work  that  is  required  of  it,  it  also  follows  that  this  cost  is  com- 
paratively low  where  by  far  the  larger  proportion  of  the  investment 
consists  of  a  durable  and  easily  managed  plant  which  requires  but  little 
attention  after  it  has  been  constructed  and  put  in  operation.  Public 
utilities  come  in  this  class.  In  these  the  cost  of  the  management  con- 
stitutes often  only  a  comparatively  small  part  of  the  total  cost  of  the 
investment,  although  this  is  not  always  the  relation  that  exists  between 
this  cost  and  the  value  of  the  products  of  such  utilities.  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  at.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  638;  In  re 
Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  482,  507;  In  re  Jt.  Appl.  Waupaca 
Et.  Lt.  Sz  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912,  8  R.  C.  586,  613. 

45.  Although  it  makes  no  difference  to  the  consumer  whether  a 
reduction  is  made  in  salaries  or  whether  the  reduction  be  in  the  amount 
to  be  returned  in  the  form  of  dividends,  consumers  have  a  right  to  demand 
that  the  combination  of  salaries  and  interest  shall  not  be  unreasonable. 
Cz7z/  ofJanesville  v.Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  648. 

46.  In  determining  the  retufn  to  the  management  some  allowance 
should  be  made  in  some  manner  for  special  efficiency.  To  deny  this  is  to 
take  away  one  of  the  greatest  incentives  to  economy.  City  of  Milwaukee 
V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  242. 


Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return        395 


b.    FOR    RAILROADS. 

In  general. 

'47.  Under  normal  conditions  the  owners  of  a  railroad  are  entitled 
to  a  fair  return  upon  a  fair  valuation  of  their  property.  This  statement 
raises  two  questions:  first,  what  is  a  fair  rate  of  interest  in  such  cases; 
and  second,  what  constitutes  a  fair  valuation  of  the  property  involved? 
Both  of  these  questions  are  so  closely  related  to  other  questions  and  involve 
so  many  problems  about  which  there  is  more  or  less  dispute,  that  any 
full  or  adequate  discussion  of  each  cannot  be  entered  upon  here.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  necessary  to  call  attention  to  a  few  facts  which  are  more 
intimately  connected  with  these  questions.  It  has  been  quite  generally 
held  that  a  fair  rate  of  interest  is  a  rate  which,  other  things  being  equal, 
corresponds  to  the  current  market  rates  on  money.  This  is  a  position 
with  which  it  is  not  easy  to  take  issue,  for  it  is  quite  clear  that  whatever 
rate  money  brings  in  the  market  is  a  safe  index  to  what  it  is  generally 
worth  for  investment  purposes.  It  may  also  be  said,  and  with  a  great 
deal  of  force,  that  a  fair  rate  of  interest  for  any  particular  road  is  the  rate 
of  income  which  its  securities  bring  on  their  market  value.  The  market 
rate  includes  the  ordinary  risks,  as  it  is  usually  considerably  higher  than 
the  rate  which  is  obtained  on  government  and  other  securities  where 
substantially  no  risks  at  all  are  involved.  As  the  bonds  draw  interest 
at  a  trifle  less  than  5  per  cent,  and  represent  about  one-half  of  the  cost 
of  reconstruction  new,  it  follows  that  on  the  various  methods  of  computing 
interest  the  owners  would  receive  only  about  5  3^  per  cent  on  their  invest- 
ment. This  is  one-half  of  one  per  cent  less  than  the  legal  rate  of  interest 
in  this  state.  It  is  also  less  than  what  is  considered  a  fair  profit  in  other 
lines  of  business.  For  these  and  other  reasons  it  would  seem  fair  that 
the  company  should  be  permitted  to  earn  at  least  6  per  cent  on  the  entire 
cost  of  reproduction,  new.  This  is  not  an  abnormal  rate.  Buell  v. 
C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  324,  477-483. 

48.  Upon  what  valuation  is  the  road  entitled  to  earn  a  fair  income 
and  what  rate  of  interest  upon  such  valuation  will  yield  such  income? 
These  questions  were  quite  fully  discussed  in  the  opinion  in  the  case  of 
Buell  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1  R.  C.  324,  and  similar  inquiries 
into  the  facts  and  principles  involved  in  this  case  have  led  to  the  conclusion 
that  an  earning  of  6  per  cent  on  an  amount  that  substantially  agrees 
with  the  cost  of  reproduction  new,  would  probably  not  be  an  unreasonably 
low  income  upon  the  investment.  In  re  Passenger  Rates  M.  St.  P.  <Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  540,  582. 

49.  On  the  entire  traffic  the  carriers  are  entitled  to  earnings  that  are 
sufficient  to  meet  the  cost  of  operation,  repairs  and  depreciation  of  the 
property  actually  used  or  useful  in  transportation,  and  that,  besides,  will 
yield  a  fair  interest  upon  a  fair  valuation  of  this  property.  In  re  Rates 
on  Pulp  Wood,  1908,  2  R.  C.  168,  224. 

50.  Generally  speaking,  no  rate  should  be  lower  than  sufficient  to 
cover  operating  expenses  and  to  contribute  at  least  a  small  amount 
towards  the  interest  upon  the  investment.  There  are  perhaps  conditions 
under  which  exceptions  to  this  may  be  warranted,  but  they  should  not 
be  numerous  or  general.     No  rates  should  be  so  high  as  to  interfere  with 


396         Return. — What  constitutes  a  reasonable  return 

the  free  and  unhampered  movement  of  the  goods,  or  yield  unreasonably 
high  profits  when  the  situation  as  a  whole  is  considered.  Between  these 
two  extremes,  or  between  the  upper  and  lower  level,  there  may  be  almost 
all  sorts  of  rates.     In  re  Rates  on  Milk  &  Cream,  1908,  2  R.  G.  450,  465. 

c.    FOR   STREET  RAILWAYS. 

In  general. 

51.  Under  normal  conditions  a  rate  of  return  of  7.5  per  cent  for 
interest  and  profit  on  such  a  valuation  as  that  allowed  in  the  Fare  Case 
(City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1), 
and  under  such  other  conditions  as  obtained  in  that  case,  is  ordinarily 
sufficient  to  bring  the  necessary  capital  into  service.  In  re  Service  of 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  G.  178,  231. 

RIGHT  OF  WAY. 

For  electric  utilities,  see  Electric  Utilities,  56. 
For  railroads,  see  Railroads,  103-105. 
For  telephone  utilities,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  62. 
Value  claimed  for  easements  over  private  right  of  way  which  subse- 
quently became  public  streets,  see  Valuation,  97. 

RISK. 

As  element  in  rate  of  interest,  see  Return,  22-32. 

in  rate  of  profits,  see  Return,  40-42. 

considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  153. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates  for  express 
companies,  see  Rates — Express,  9. 

RIVER  IMPROVEMENTS. 

Jurisdiction   of    Gommission    over   river   improvements,    see   Railroad 

GOMMISSION,  97. 

ROCK. 

See  Stone. 

ROLLING  STOCK. 

Apportionment  of  maintenance  of  rolling  stock  expenses  in  the  determina- 
tion of  unit  costs  for  interurbans,  see  Accounting,  80. 
for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  142. 

ROOM  BASIS. 

Flat  rates  for  water  service  based  on  number  of  rooms,  see  Rates — 
Water,  21-22. 


Routing  397 


ROPE. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

ROUTES. 

Alteration  of  route  of  railroad,  see  Railroad  Commission,  37. 

Joint  or  through  rates  should  be  based  on  shortest  available  route. 

1.  It  hardly  seems  reasonable  to  base  joint  rates  on  any  other  than 
the  shortest  available  route.  This  position  is  supported  by  experience, 
for  where  more  than  one  route  is  open  the  instances  where  the  rates  are 
based  on  the  longest  would  seem  to  be  the  exceptions  rather  than  the  rule. 
To  base  the  rates  on  the  shorter  distance  is  also  in  line  with  common 
fairness  and  public  interest.  Any  other  course  would,  in  most  cases, 
almost  seem  absurd.  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  u.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  647,  652. 

2.  Where  no  specific  directions  w^ere  given  the  shipper  was  entitled 
to  a  routing  by  which  he  would  receive  the  lowest  through  rate.  Hodges 
V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  300;  Engesether  u.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co. 
et  at.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  504,  505-506. 

Right  of  shipper  to  dictate  routing. 

3.  The  shipper  has  the  right  to  dictate  to  the  carrier  the  route  over 
which  the  shipment  is  to  move.  Hodges  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  300; 
Engesether  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  504;  Reitbrock 
Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  447,  448. 

ROUTE  SIGNS. 

Route  signs  to  be  displayed  on  street  railway  cars  to  improve  service,  see 
Street  Railways,  45. 

ROUTING. 

Change  in  original  termini  or  route  of  a  railroad  for  a  greater  distance 
than  one  mile,  requires  the  approval  of  the  Railroad  Commission, 
see  Railroad  Commission,  37. 

Error  in  routing,  carrier  acting  in  good  faith  not  to  be  held  responsible 
for  errors  of  shipper  in  routing,  see  Reparation,  19. 

Express  shipments,  circuitous  routing,  see  Express  Companies,  4. 

Routing  of  interurban  cars,  see  Interurban  Railways,  18. 
of  street  cars,  see  Street  Railways,  42. 

Routing  of  interstate  traffic — Authority  of  Commission. 

1.  The  control  which  the  state  may  directly  or  through  a  state  agency 
exercise  over  trains  engaged  in  interstate  traffic,  is  exceedingly  limited. 
If  the  state  has  the  power  to  direct  the  routing  of  interstate  traffic  where  a 
railway  company  maintains  more  than  one  line  between  two  points  in 
the  state,  it  must  result  from  a  holding  that  the  exercise  of  such  power 


398 Routing 

does  not  directly  regulate  or  place  a  burden  upon  interstate  commerce, 
or  that  the  routing  of  trains  in  such  instances  is  such  a  regulation  that 
the  state  may  properly  act  in  the  matter  until  the  congress  has  legislated 
on  the  subject  and  thereby  withdrawn  the  same  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  state.  Village  of  Abbotsford  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  619,  623. 

Routing  of  shipments — Duty  of  railroad  to  route  shipments  over 
lines  whereby  the  freight  charges  will  be  least. 

2.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  railway  company,  in  the  absence  of  any 
specific  direction  to  the  contrary,  to  route  shipments  over  lines  whereby 
the  freight  charges  will  be  least.  Owen  &  Bro.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  43,  44;  Callaway  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al,  1914,  13  R.  C.  694,  696. 

RULES  AND  REGULATIONS. 

Labels  on  freight  packages  of  butter,  eggs  and  cheese,  regulations  for,  see 
Labels,  1. 

1.     IN  GENERAL. 
II.     EXPRESS  PACKAGES. 
III.      MINIMUM   CHARGES— FREIGHT   CHARGES. 
IV.     ORDERING  AND   FURNISHING   OF   CARS. 
V.     REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  FURNISHING  PARTY  LINE  TELEPHONE 
SERVICE. 
VI.     REQUIREMENTS   AS   TO   PAYMENT   OF   RATES   FOR   SERVICES 
RENDERED   BY  PUBLIC   UTILITY. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

Duty  of  Commission  to  determine  reasonableness  of  rules. 

1.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Commission  to  ascertain  from  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances  presented  in  any  case  the  reasonableness  of  any  rule  or 
regulation  respecting  the  service  and,  if  it  shall  determine  that  such  rule 
or  regulation  is  unreasonable,  to  change  the  same  or  substitute  a  reasonable 
rule  or  regulation  in  place  thereof.  In  re  Use  of  Silent  Numbers  by  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  587,  593. 

Filing  of  rules  and  regulations  with  Commission. 

2.  The  company  had  the  right  and  it  was  its  duty  to  file  all  of  its 
rules  and  regulations  with  the  Commission  as  provided  by  law  in  order 
that  the  same  might  be  legally  effective.  So  long  as  such  rules  are  filed 
as  required  by  statute,  they  are  binding  upon  the  company  and  its 
patrons.     In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  142. 

II.  EXPRESS  PACKAGES. 

Commodities  intended  for  two  or  more  consignees. 

3.  A  rule  of  an  express  company,  requiring  that  only  commodities 
intended  for  a  single  consignee  shall  be  shipped  in  a  single  package,  is  a 
reasonable  regulation.  Souvenir  Novelty  Co.  v.  American  Express  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  731,  733. 


Rules  S:  Regul. — Requireiri  ts  as  to  rate  paifirCts  to  pub.  util.  399 


III.  MINIMUM  CHARGES— FREIGHT  CHARGES. 

Double  ininimuin  on  mixed  carloads  of  grains  and  seeds. 

4.  The  practice  of  the  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  Ry.  Co.  in  charging  a  double 
minimum  on  a  shipment  of  flax  and  rye  from  Clear  Lake  to  Itasca,  led 
to  an  investigation  by  the  Commission  on  its  own  motion  into  the  practice 
of  charging  a  double  minimum  on  shipments  of  mixed  carloads  of  grains 
and  seeds.  The  Western  Trunk  Line  rules  and  the  tariffs  in  force  on  the 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  Ry.  Co.  show  that  technically  such  practice  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  published  schedules.  Held:  That  the  rules  now  in  force 
are  unreasonable,  and  the  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  Ry.  Co.  is  ordered  to  modify 
its  tariff  schedules  so  as  to  eliminate  such  double  minima.  In  re  Mixed 
Carloads  of  Grains  and  Seeds,  1910,  5  R.  C.  711,  713. 

IV.  ORDERING  AND  FURNISHING  OF  CARS. 

Minimum  loading  requirements. 

5.  The  rules  and  regulations  relative  to  the  ordering  and  furnishing 
of  cars  are  reasonable  ones,  and  the  minima  prescribed  for  the  various 
sized  cars  in  use  in  the  respondent's  tariff  in  the  present  case  are  not 
unnecessarily  burdensome  upon  shippers.  Experience  has  demonstrated 
that  these  requirements  are  just  and  should  not  be  disturbed.  If  the 
shipper  desires  any  particular  sized  car,  it  is  his  duty  to  order  the  same. 
In  the  absence  of  such  order  the  carrier  is  permitted  to  furnish  such  car 
as  it  has  available  for  the  transportation  in  question.  Krouskop  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  178,  181. 

V.  REQUIREMENT  AS  TO  FURNISHING  PARTY  LINE 

TELEPHONE  SERVICE. 

Reasonableness  of  rule. 

6.  A  rule  providing  that  a  utility  will  not  hold  itself  liable  to  furnish 
party  line  service  unless  the  line  can  be  kept  full  to  capacity,  held  to  be 
unreasonable.  In  re  Appl.  Badger  State  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
407. 

VI.  REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  PAYMENT  OF  RATES  FOR 
SERVICES  RENDERED  BY  PUBLIC  UTILITY. 

Necessity  for  prompt  payment. 

7.  In  order  to  properly  discharge  its  obligation  to  its  patrons,  it  is 
manifestly  essential  that  the  company  receive  promptly,  at  stated  periods, 
all  indebtedness  due  for  service  rendered,  and  that  no  losses  be  incurred, 
if  preventable,  by  reason  of  uncollectible  accounts  of  either  the  dishonest 
or  the  impecunious  patron.  The  necessity  of  some  regulation,  therefore, 
that  will  accomplish  this  object,  is  apparent  upon  consideration  of  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  company's  public  undertaking.  Berend  v. 
Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  155;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  Water 
Supply  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  691,  692;  In  re  Refusal  Farmers'  Union  Tel. 


•400  Rules  d:  ReguL — Requirem'ts  as  to  rate  pajjm'ts  to  pub,  util. 

Co.  to  Furnish  Service,  1913,  13  R.  C.  399,  401;  In  re  Refusal  of  Service 
by  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  518,  522. 

Payment  of  full  amount  by  each  party  using  common  fixtures. 

8.  Objection  was  made  to  a  rule  providing  that  any  fixture  located  in 
any  public  place  will  be  rated  for  the  full  amount  that  would  be  chargeable 
to  different  parties  having  access  to  the  fixtures  at  the  same  rates  that 
would  be  charged  if  each  of  the  parties  had  the  same  fixtures  independent 
of  each  other.  The  basis  upon  which  such  rule  has  generally  been  upheld, 
is  that  the  charge  is  in  the  nature  of  a  minimum  charge,  which  may  be 
made  the  same  for  each  consumer.  A  strict  adherence  to  the  cost  principle 
may  not  justify  the  practice  as  outlined  by  this  rule,  but  so  long  as  each 
consumer  has  the  option  of  having  fixtures  in  his  own  office  at  the  same 
rate,  no  injustice  appears  to  exist  in  the  present  system  of  charging.  The 
proper  extension  of  the  system  of  metering  would  seem  to  furnish  the  best 
means  of  overcoming  any  difficulties  which  may  arise.  City  of  Janesville 
V.  Janesville  \V.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  682. 

Payments  to  be  uniform  without  reference  to  contractual  rela- 
tions between  utility  and  its  cxislomers. 

9.  The  refusal  of  the  telephone  company  to  accept  as  full  payment 
for  its  services  a  sum  less  than  the  full  rate  which  other  subscribers  are 
required  to  pay  for  similar  services  was  in  accord  with  the  plain  duty  of 
the  company  under  sec.  1797m-90  of  the  Statutes.  It  is  the  intent  of 
this  section  that  the  payment  for  services  rendered  by  a  utility  shall 
be  uniform  without  reference  to  any  contractual  relations  existing  between 
the  utility  and  its  subscribers.  In  re  Refusal  Farmers'  Union  Tel.  Co. 
to  Furnish  Service,  1913,  13  R.  C.  399,  400. 

Publicity  to  be  given  rules  and  regulations. 

10.  All  utility  companies  are  required  by  law  to  file  rules  and  regula- 
tions and  charges  governing  connections  with  consumers  and  everything 
related  thereto.     Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  370,  372. 

11.  Complaint  that  the  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  does  not  furnish  the  subscribers 
at  its  Hortonville  exchange  with  a  printed  schedule  of  rates  and  rules. 
The  evidence  shows  that  the  respondent's  rates  for  Hortonville  are  set 
forth  in  a  typewritten  sheet  of  instructions,  which  is  on  file  in  the  manager's 
office  and  is  open  to  inspection  by  the  pubfic  as  required  by  law.  Davis 
et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  370,  371,  383. 

Published  rules  governing  services  and  charges  must  be  applied 
impartially. 

12.  The  published  rules  and  regulations  and  charges  for  service 
connections  with  telephone  subscribers  apply  in  all  cases,  under  sub- 
stantially similar  conditions,  whether  the  applicant  for  service  is  entirely 
new  or  a  former  patron  who  has  returned  to  the  company.  If  the  service 
which  the  company  is  required  to  perform  for  both  new  and  former 
patrons  is  the  same,  the  charge  must  be  the  same.  Any  variation  in  the 
charge,  assuming  similar  conditions,  would  be  unjust  discrimination 
prohibited  by  law.  Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  370,  372- 
373. 


Rules  cfc  Regul. — RequirenrCis  as  to  rate  nnpm'fy  to  pub,  util.    401 

Reasonableness  of  regulations. 

13.  Rules  and  regulations  of  various  kinds,  having  for  their  purpose 
the  enforcement  of  the  prompt  payment  of  all  indebtedness  owing  for 
services  rendered  by  a  public  utility  in  the  discharge  of  its  public  function 
to  the  public,  and  the  elimination  of  chances  of  loss  caused  by  extending 
credit  to  those  who  are  unwilling  or  unable  to  pay,  have  long  been  in 
vogue,  and  their  reasonableness  has  been  passed  upon  by  the  courts  in 
many  instances.     Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  156. 

Regulations  for  discounts  or  penalties. 

14.  It  is  lawful  to  offer  discounts  from  the  regular  bill,  on  condition  of 
payment  on  or  before  a  certain  date,  or  advance  payments,  provided  that 
such  discount  rules  are  strictly  complied  with,  without  discrimination. 
No  allowance  should  be  made  for  failure  to  receive  a  bill  through  the  mails 
or  otherwise,  or  on  account  of  the  absence  of  the  subscriber,  or  other 
causes.     In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rates  Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  R.  G.  521,  545. 

15.  A  rule  of  a  water  company  requiring  water  rates  to  be  paid 
quarterly,  adding  a  penalty  of  5  per  cent  in  case  of  default  in  payment  for 
ten  days  and  providing  that  after  default  for  fifteen  days  the  water 
should  be  shut  off  from  the  premises,  is  a  reasonable  regulation  and  en- 
forceable against  consumers.  (Tacoma  Hotel  Co.  v.  Tacoma  Lt.  <$:  W., 
Co.,  1891,  3  Wash.  316,  325.)  Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150, 
159. 

16.  The  following  rules  for  the  protection  of  a  public  utility  against 
loss  of  operating  revenues  because  of  uncollectible  accounts,  and  for  the 
securing  of  the  prompt  receipt  of  all  moneys  due  for  services  performed 
or  product  furnished,  may  be  deduced  as  reasonable  regulations  which 
may  be  lawfully  prescribed  and  enforced  by  a  public  utility:  1.  It  may 
require  of  any  patron  the  deposit  of  a  reasonable  sum  of  money  as  security 
for  the  prompt  payment  of  bills  when  due.  In  determining  the  reason- 
ableness of  the  amount  thus  to  be  deposited,  the  probable  amount  of  the 
indebtedness  that  may  be  incurred  during  the  month  or  other  stated 
period  at  the  end  of  which  bills  are  made  out  and  rendered,  is  an  important 
factor.  No  more  than  a  sum  sufficient  to  furnish  adequate  security  for 
the  credit  extended  may  be  legally  exacted.  2.  It  may  require  satis- 
factory security  to  be  furnished  in  lieu  of  such  deposit.  3.  It  may  allow 
a  discount  upon  bills  paid  on  or  before  a  stated  day,  or  exact  a  penalty 
for  failure  to  make  payment  within  a  certain  time.  4.  For  neglect  or 
refusal  on  the  part  of  any  patron  to  comply  with  any  of  the  legal  rules 
and  regulations  established,  it  may  discontinue  service  to  such  patron. 
Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  159-160;  In  re  Refusal  Farmers' 
Union  Tel.  Co.  to  Furnish  Service,  1913,  13  R.  C.  399,  401. 

17.  The  Commission  investigated  the  complaint  that  the  North- 
western Lt.  &  P.  Co.  unjustly  collected  a  5  per  cent  prompt  payment 
discount.  Held:  The  collection  of  the  5  per  cent  discount  in  the  present 
case  was  proper  since  petitioner  did  not  pay  his  bill  until  two  days  after 
the  last  discount  day.  In  re  Invest.  Northwestern  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  59,  69-70. 

18.  Certain  amount  of  free  toll  service  allowed  for  prompt  payment 


402  Rules  Jc  Regul. — Requirem'ts  as  to  rate  paunrCts  to  pub,  util. 

of  telephone  bills.  In  re  Invest.  Rates  and  Regulations  of  Eagle  Tel.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  397,  401.  "   * 

Regulations    for    discounts    or    penalties — Establishment    of   dis- 
count rules. 

19.  Rules  for  discount  for  prompt  payment  of  bills  established: 
Electric  Utilities. — In  re  Appl.  Fox  River  Millg.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1907, 
2  R.  C.  135;  In  re  Appl.  Alma  El.  Li.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  144;  In  re  Appl. 
Chetek  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  662;  In  re  Appl.  Stoughton  Mun.  El. 
Lt.  Plant,  1909,  3  R.  C.  484;  In  re  Appl.  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  778;  In  re  Appl.  No.  Milw.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  89; 
State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501; 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  /n  re  Appl.  Jefferson 
Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555;  In  re  Appl.  Eagle  River  Lt.  & 
W.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  521;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  1911, 

6  R.  G.  717;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187; 
Kenosha  El.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Kenosha  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  119;  City 
of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  406;  In  re  Invest. 
Milw.  Electric  Rates,  1912,  9  R.  G.  541;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v. 
Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704;  In  re  Appl  New  Glarus 
Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  53;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  EL 
Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197;  In  re  Appl.  Chetek  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co., 

1912,  11  R.  G.  227;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G. 
449;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260;  City 
of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  324;  Douglas  et  al. 
V.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  337;  In  re  Invest.  Electric  Rates  in 
Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G.  584;  In  re  Appl.  Neshkoro  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913, 

13  R.  G.  52;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G. 
100;  In  re  Madison  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  259;  In  re  Appl.  Darling- 
ton EL  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.'344;  In  re  AppL  City  of  Menasha, 

1913,  13  R.  G.  424;  In  re  AppL  ML  Horeb  Ht.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
653;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Withee,  1914,  13  R.  G.  704;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee 
EL  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  712;  In  re  Stevens  PL  Ltg.  Co.,  1914, 

14  R.  G.  350;  Douglas  et  aL  v.  Equitable  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  381; 
Kittleson  et  aL  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485;  Jones 
et  aL  V.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121;  In  re  AppL  Sun 
Prairie  Mun.  EL  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  189;  In  re  AppL  Burkhardt  Millg. 
Sc  EL  P.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  409;  In  re  AppL  United  Ht.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co., 

1914,  15  R.  G.  505;  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sc  EL  Plant,  1914, 

15  R.  G.  534. 

Gas  Utilities. — In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  163; 
State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  EL  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501; 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1;  City  of  Racine  v. 
Racine  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El. 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187;  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911, 

7  R.  G.  477;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  G.  479;  Meyer  et  al.  v. 
Sheboygan  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  439;  1913,  11  R.  G.  309;  City  of 
Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Gas  Sc  EL  Co.,  1913, 12  R.  G.  324;  City  of  Milwaukee 
V.  Milwaukee  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  441;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha 
G.  Sc  EL  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100;  In  re  AppL  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  325;  Jones  et  al.  v.^Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  12. 


Rules  Sc  Regul. — Reqiiirem'ts  as  to  rate  paijirCts  to  pub,  util.  403 

Telephone  Utilities. — In  re  Appl.  Peivaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  420;  In  re  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  534;  In  re  Appl.  Oostburg 
Tel.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  407;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C. 
187;  In  re  Appl.  Eleva  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  211;  In  re  Appl. 
Brooklyn  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  573;  In  re  Appl.  Evansville  Tel.  Exch., 

1911,  6  R.  C.  639;  In  re  Appl  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
465;  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  169;  In  re  Appl. 
Brodhead  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  383;  In  re  Appl.  Random  Lake  Tel.  Co., 

1912,  11  R.  C.  130;  In  re  Appl.  Deerfield  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  672; 
In  re  Appl.  Eleva  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  586;  In  re  Appl. 
Coloma  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  594;  In  re  Appl.  Cascade  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  808;  In  re  Appl.  Norwalk  Ind.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  222; 
In  re  Invest.  Eagle  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 15  R.  C.  397;  In  re  Appl.  Clark  County 
Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  822. 

Water  Utilities. — City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  187;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497; 
Lothrop  V.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville 
El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197;  Rollins  et  al.  v.  Village  of  Montfort, 

1913,  11  R.  C.  278;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C. 
449;  In  re  Appl.  F£nnimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant.  1913,  12  R.  C.  194; 
Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  485. 

» 

Establishment  of  penalties. 

20.  Rules  providing  penalties  for  delinquent  payment  of  bills 
established : 

Electric  Utilities. — In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Wiihee,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
704. 

Telephone  Utilities. — In  re  Appl.  Evansville  Tel.  Exch.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  639;  In  re  Platteville,  Rewey  &  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G. 
534;  In  re  Appl.  Peoples  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  499;  In  re  Appl.  Grant 
Co.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  128;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown, 

1914,  13  R.  C.  540;  In  re  Appl.  Troy  &  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14 
R.  G.  157;  In  re  Appl.  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  405;  In  re  Appl. 
Badger  State  Tel.  Sc  Teleg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  407;  In  re  Appl.  Clark  Co. 
Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  822. 

Water  Utilities.— 7/2  re  Appl.  City  of  Sptirta,  1913,  12  R.  G.  532; 
Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634. 

Regulations  for  money  deposit  or  security. 

21.  A  rule  requiring  a  subscriber  to  deposit  a  reasonable  amount  of 
money  to  insure  the  payment  of  bills  is  reasonable.  The  respondent's 
rule  having  been  duly  published  and  filed,  as  required  by  law,  is  binding 
upon  the  company  as  well  as  upon  the  public.  The  fact  that  the  petitioner 
offered  to  give  a  bond  as  security  for  telephone  rentals,  is,  immaterial. 
There  is  no  provision  in  the  rules  of  the  company  prescribing  such  security 
and  the  company  could  not,  therefore,  have  accepted  such  offer,  if  it  had 
chosen  to  do  so,  without  violating  the  statute.  The  giving  of  such 
security  might  be  a  convenient  and  desirable  alternative  in  certain 
instances  to  making  a  deposit  of  money,  and  the  rules  of  many  companies 
so  provide.     Unless  there  is  some  practicable  objection  to  the  policy. 


404     Rules  <Sc  ReguL- — RequireirCts  as  to  rate  pajjm^ts  topub,  util 

which  is  not  apparent  to  us  at  present,  we  suggest  that  the  company 
modify  its  rules  so  as  to  permit  it  to  accept  satisfactory  and  reUable 
security  in  place  of  a  money  deposit  whenever  it  seems  prudent  to  do  so. 
Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  154,  160. 

Regulations  for  money  deposit  or  securities. 

22.  A  rule  permitting  a  company  to  demand  security  for  the  gas 
consumed,  or  a  deposit  of  money  to  secure  payment  thereof  "appears  to  be 
just  and  necessary  to  guard  against  loss.  As  the  delivery  of  the  gas  is 
necessarily  its  consumption,  and  as  the  amount  delivered  is  ascertained 
by  the  amount  consumed,  it  would  seem  to  be  just  and  right  that  the 
company  should  not  be  compelled  to  furnish  it  without  reasonable 
security  for  payment,  in  convenient  amounts  and  at  proper  periods." 
(Shepard  v.  Milwaukee  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1858,  6  Wis.  539,  548.)  Berend  v. 
Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  156. 

23.  A  public  utility  may  refuse  to  furnish  service  unless  the  charges 
for  such  service  are  prepaid,  or  a  sum  of  money  sufTicient  to  secure  the 
payment  for  services  rendered  during  any  future  interval  for  which 
credit  is  extended,  or  a  bond  to  secure  such  payment  is  deposited  with 
the  utility,  but  the  utility  may  not  condition  the  furnishing  of  service 
upon  the  liquidation  of  indebtedness  to  the  utility  for  past  service.  In  re 
Refusal  of  Service  by  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  518,  522. 

24.  A  public  utility  which  requires  a  deposit  of  money  to  secure 
the  payment  of  bills  for  future  service  before  rendering  service  to  an 
applicant  cannot  apply  the  deposit  to  the  payment  of  indebtedness 
previously  incurred  by  the  applicant,  but  must  look  for  its  remedies  to 
the  courts  of  law.  In  re  Refusal  of  Service  by  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1914:, 
13  R.  C.  518,  522. 

25.  When  a  consumer  moves  from  one  place  of  residence  to  another 
he  may  doubtless  be  treated  as  a  new  consumer  and  be  obliged  to  comply 
anew  with  the  rules  and  regulations  then  in  effect  before  receiving  service 
at  his  new  plaice  of  residence.  ^  The  acceptance  of  the  application  for 
service  at  the  new  place  of  residence  then  constitutes  a  new  and  indepen- 
dent contract  distinct  from  the  contract  for  service  at  the  former  place  of 
residence.  In  re  Refusal  of  Service  by  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1914,  13 
R.  C.  518,  521. 

Establishment  of  deposit  rules. 

26.  Rules  established  requiring  consumers  to  deposit  money  or 
security  for  payment  of  bills.  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El. 
Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  534,  550;  In  re  Appl.  Clark  County  Tel.  Co.  to 
Increase  Rates,  1915,  15  R.  C.  822,  825. 

Regulations  for  payment  of  rates  in  advance. 

27.  The  promulgation  of  a  rule  requiring  the  payment  of  rates  in 
advance,  together  with  the  inducement  of  a  discount,  is  apparently  the 
result  of  good  experience  and  practice  and  is  in  the  interest  of  subscribers. 
In  re  Appl.  Pewaukee- Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  420,  421. 

28.  A  rule  of  a  rural  telephone  company  that  telephone  rent  must  be 
paid  for  a  period  of  six  months  in  advance,  is  reasonable;  and  a  sub- 
scriber refusing  to  comply  therewith  may  be  denied  service  by  the  com- 


Rules  (Sc  Reg ul. — RequireirC ts  as^to  rate  paijirCts  to  pub,  util.    405 

pany.  {Buffalo  County  Tel.  Co.  v.  Turner,  1908,  118  N.  W.  [Neb.] 
1064;  Malochee  v.  Great  Southern  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.,  1897,  49  La.  Ann. 
1690.)     Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  157. 

29.  A  rule  of  a  water  company  that  consumers  shall  pay  three  months 
in  advance  for  water  supply,  is  reasonable.  (Harbison  v.  Knoxville  Water 
Co.,  1899,  53  S.  W.  [Tenn.]  993,  996.)  Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  G.  150,  158. 

Regulations  for  service  charge  when  meter  serves  more  than  one 
customer. 

30.  Objection  was  made  to  a  rule  providing  that  where  meters  serve 
more  than  one  tenant,  each  customer  so  served  will  be  charged  the  full 
minimum  rate.  It  was  ordered  that  the  rule  be  amended  so  that  in  such 
cases  a  service  charge  of  $1  per  quarter  shall  be  made  for  each  additional 
consumer.  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628, 
683,  707. 

Regulations  for  withdrawal  of  service. 

31.  It  seems  to  be  well  settled  that  for  failure  or  refusal  to  comply 
with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  a  public  utility  a  consumer's  service 
may  be  discontinued.  (27  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  2nd  ed.,  1940) 
(14  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  2nd  ed.,  931)  (Thornton  on  Law  Relating 
to  Oil  &  Gas,  sec.  547)  (30  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law,  2nd  ed.,  419) 
(51  Gent.  L.  J.  131-133)  (27  Am.  Law  Reg.  N.  S.  277).  Berend  v.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  150,  159. 

32.  A  rule  of  a  telephone  company  requiring  payment  monthly  for 
telephone  service  on  a  specified  day  succeeding  the  maturity  of  the  in- 
debtedness, and  providing  that  on  failure  thus  to  pay  the  service  was  to 
be  discontinued,  is  a  reasonable  regulation.  (Rushville  Cooperative  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Irvin,  1901,  27  Ind.  App.  62,  68-69,  affirmed  in  Irvin  v.  Rushville 
Cooperative  Tel.  Co.,  1903,  161  Ind.  524.)  Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  G.  150,  157-158. 

33.  A  rule  providing  that  water  shall  be  shut  off  for  failure  to  comply 
with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  company,  and  that  a  charge  of  one 
dollar  shall  be  paid  before  the  water  is  again  turned  on,  is  reasonable. 
City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G,  628,  683. 

34.  Where  a  patron  allows  his  bills  to  run  until  it  becomes  necessary 
to  disconnect  him  from  the  lines  of  the  utility,  it  is  only  reasonable  that 
he  and  not  the  utility  should  bear  the  expense  of  reconnection  in  case  he 
again  desires  to  have  service.  The  proposed  regulations  for  discon- 
tinuing service  in  case  payment  is  not  made  within  one  month  of  the  time 
when  it  is  due  and  to  exact  a  charge  of  $1.50  in  addition  to  rentals  due  for 
reconnection  of  such  subscribers  does  not  seem  to  be  unreasonable  in 
the  present  case.  In  re  Appl.  Platteville,  Rewey  &  Ellenhoro  Tel.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  G.  534,  539. 

35.  The  rule  of  a  telephone  company,  which  forbids  listening  on  the 
line  when  others  are  talking  and  provides  that  subscribers  violating  this 
rule  will,  upon  proof  being  made,  have  their  telephones  removed  by  the 
company,  is  a  reasonable  regulation.  {Huffman  v.  Marcy  Mut.  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  143  la.  590;  121  N.  W.  1033.)  In  re  Invest.  Pulaski  Merchants'  <fc 
Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  558,  561. 


406  Rules  &  Regul. — Requirem'ts  as  to  rate  paijm'ts  to  pub,  util. 

Regulation  for  withdrawal  of  service.  ^ 

36.  When  a  patron  refuses  to  pay  the  full  amount  of  rental  at  the 
end  of  the  period  when  the  rental  becomes  due,  the  company  should 
discontinue  his  service.  In  this  case  the  company,  in  the  absence  of  any 
rule  protecting  it  against  loss  of  revenue  from  the  refusal  of  patrons  to 
meet  their  obligations,  discontinued  complainant's  service  when  he 
refused  to  pay  the  bill  in  full,  and  its  act  in  the  premises  cannot  be 
questioned.     In  re  Refusal  Farmers*  Union  Tel.  Co.  to  Furnish  Service, 

1913,  13  R.  C.  399,  401-402. 

37.  Complaint  that  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Go.  refuses  to  pay  for  a  tele- 
phone installed  in  its  depot  at  Lancaster.  Held:  The  proper  course  to 
follow,  if  telephone  rental  is  not  paid  within  a  reasonable  time,  would  be 
to  take  out  the  telephone.     In  re  Appl.  Farmers*  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown, 

1914,  13  R.  C.  540,  576. 


Refusal  of  future  service. 

38.  Though  a  telephone  company  is  justified  in  discontinuing  service 
to  a  subscriber  upon  his  refusal  to  pay  bills  rendered  him  in  full,  when  the 
subscriber  asks  for  a  renewal  of  service  the  company  is  not  justified  by 
the  existence  of  his  previous  indebtedness  in  refusing  to  give  him  present 
service  if  he  is  ready  and  willing  to  give  the  company  reasonable  security 
for  the  payment  of  future  bills.  In  re  Refusal  Farmers*  Union  Tel.  Co. 
to  Furnish  Service,  1913,  13  R.  C.  399,  401-402. 

39.  The  authorities  are  not  in  accord  as  to  the  obligation  of  a  public 
utility  to  serve  an  applicant  who  is  in  arrears  at  other  premises,  although 
he  tenders  ready  money  for  present  service,  but  the  best  considered  cases 
take  the  view  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  public  duty  to  refuse  service 
under  such  circumstances.  In  re  Refusal  of  Service  by  Madison  G.  Sc 
El.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  518,  521;  In  re  Appl.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc  El.  P.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  409,  411. 

40.  The  regulation  of  the  company  prohibiting  subscribers  on  party 
lines  from  "listening  in"  except  to  ascertain  whether  the  line  is  open  or 
busy  is  reasonable.  However,  while  persistent  and  gross  infractions  of 
telephone  utility  rules  might  warrant  a  permanent  exclusion  from  the 
use  of  the  utihty  service,  the  "listening  in"  and  remarks  following  were 
not  of  a  character,  in  the  present  case,  to  warrant  depriving  the  subscriber 
of  telephone  service  indefinitely.  After  suspension  of  service  for  a  reason- 
able time,  reconnection  should  have  been  made  voluntarily  by  the  com- 
pany. In  re  Refusal  Oconto  Rural  Tel.  Co.  to  Extend  Service,  1914,  15 
R.  C.  277,  278. 

Telephone  switching  rates — Bills  rendered  directly  to  connecting 
rural  companies. 

41.  The  Mineral  Pt.  Tel.  Co.  asks  that  it  be  permitted  to  render  bills 
for  switching  service  directly  to  the  rural  companies  concerned,  instead  of 
to  the  subscribers  of  those  companies,  as  at  present.  Held:  Inasmuch 
as  the  applicant  has  not  the  means  of  compelling  payment  by  individual 
subscribers  of  rural  lines  because  it  cannot  disconnect  them  as  in  the  case 
of  local  subscribers,  and  as  no  injustice  would  appear  to  result  from  the 


Safety  Measures  407 


proposed  change,  it  is  believed  to  be  a  reasonable  regulation.     In  re  Appl. 
Mineral  Pt.  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  285,  304. 

RURAL  SERVICE. 

Refusal  to  extend  rural  telephone  service,  because  extension  would 
decrease  revenue  derived  from  toll  station,  see  Telephone 
Utilities,  44. 

RURAL  STATION. 

Conversion  of  a  toll  station  into  a  rural  station,  see  Telephone  Utili- 
ties, 12. 

RUTABAGAS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  rutabagas,  see  Rates — Railroad,  275. 

RYE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  rye,  see  Rates — Railroad,  276. 

r 

SAFETY. 

Operation  of  shuttle  train  considered  dangerous  to  the  traveling  public, 
see  Train  Service,  22. 

Rules  for  the  construction,  maintenance  and  operation  of  interlocking 
plants,  see  Railroads,  60;  Street  Railways,  18. 

Safety  of  bridges  connecting  highways  upon  which  railways  are  con- 
structed, see  Bridges,  1. 

SAFETY  APPLIANCES. 

Automatic  crossing  alarm  for  protection  of  interurban  railway  crossing, 

see  Interurban  Railways,  1. 
railroad  crossing,  see  Railroads,  20-23. 
Gates  for  the  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see  Interurban  Railways, 

2;  Railroads,  28. 
Interlocking  plants  and  derailing  and  signal  systems  for  protection  of 

railroad  crossings,  see  Railroads,  58. 
Sign  board  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see  Railroads,  33. 
Tell  tales  required  for  protection  of  trainmen,  see  Railroads,  62. 

SAFETY  MEASURES. 

Charge  for  excess  loading,  when  used  as  a  measure  of  safety  to  induce 
shippers  not  to  overload,  is  not  unreasonable,  see  Reparation,  91. 

Installation  of  automatic  air  brakes  for  electric  cars  propelled  at  high 
rate  of  speed,  as  a  prevention  of  accidents,  see  Street  Rail- 
ways, 30. 

Order  of  Commission  requiring  better  sanitary  condition  of  cars  for  safety 
of  public,  see  Street  Railways,  34. 


408  Salaries 


SALARIES. 

Apportionment  of  salaries  of  operators  in  the  determination  of  unit 
costs  for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  164. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utiUties,  see  Rates — 
Electric,  41-42. 

Wages  of  management  as  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  toll 
bridges,  see  Rates — Toll  Bridge,  1. 

SAND. 

See  also  Gravel  and  Sand. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  sand,  see  Rates — Railroad,  278. 

SAND  AND  GRAVEL. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  sand  and  gravel,  see  Rates — Rail- 
road, 90. 

SANITARY  CONDITION  OF  CARS. 

Order  of  Commission  requiring  street  railway  cars  to  be  kept  in  sanitary 
condition,  see  Street  Railways,  34. 

SASH.  t 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  sash  and  doors,  see  Rates — Railroad,  91. 

SAW  LOGS. 

See  Logs. 

SCHEDULES. 

Railroad  rate  schedules,  see  Schedules  or  Tariffs. 
Street  car  schedules,  see  Street  Railways,  43-44. 
Train  schedules,  see  Train  Schedules. 
Utility  rate  schedules,  see  Schedules  for  Utilities. 

SCHEDULES  FOR  UTILITIES. 

Agreements  with  consumers  relating  to  rates. 

1,  The  validity  of  the  agreements  and  understandings  alleged  by 
the  opposition  to  exist  between  the  electric  consumers  affected  by  the 
proposed  increase  in  rates  and  the  city  authorities  to  the  effect  that  the 
said  consumers  should  be  charged  at  the  same  rates  as  consumers  within 
the  city,  cannot  be  determined  in  the  absence  of  satisfactory  evidence  of 
the  agreements  in  question.  The  contractual  nature  of  these  alleged 
agreements,  however,  appears  doubtful  in  any  event  and  no  agreement 


Schedules  for  Utilities 409 

entered  into  subsequently  to  April  1,  1907,  would  constitute  a  valid 
contract  unless  filed  with  and  approved  by  the  Commission  as  part  of  the 
rate  schedule.  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  6c  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C. 
260,  270. 

Departure  from  published  schedule  prohibited. 

2.  Rate  schedules  should  be  adhered  to  in  every  instance  until 
changed  in  the  manner  provided  by  statute.  National  Travelers''  Assn. 
of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  678,  689;  In  re  Appl.  Platteville, 
Reweij  &  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  534,  540;  In  re  Appl.  Oakfield 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  726,  727. 

3.  Public  utility  rates  must  be  fixed  and  certain,  and  cannot  be  in  the 
form  of  a  stock  assessment,  which  may  vary  from  year  to  year.  In  re 
Appl.  Platteville,  Reiveij  Sz  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  534,  540. 

4.  The  fact  that  the  rates  applied  for  had,  as  the  result  of  a  mis- 
understanding of  the  Public  Utilities  Law,  been  in  actual  effect  for  some 
time  before  application  was  made  to  the  Commission  for  authority  to 
charge  such  rates,  is  no  indication  that  the  rates  in  question  should  remain 
undisturbed.  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12 
R.  C.  194,  206;  In  re  Village  of  Wiihee,  1914,  13  R.  C.  704,  705. 

Extent  of  publicity  to  be  given  schedules. 

5.  Complaint  was  made  that  the  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  does  not  furnish  the 
subscribers  at  its  Hortonville  exchange  with  a  printed  schedule  of  rates 
and  rules.  Some  testimony  was  offered  to  the  effect  that  the  company's 
representative  at  Hortonville  did  not  comply  with  requests  for  copies  of 
rates  and  contracts.  The  evidence  shows  that  the  respondent's  rates  for 
Hortonville  are  set  forth  in  a  typewritten  sheet  of  instructions,  which  is 
on  file  in  the  manager's  office  and  is  open  to  inspection  by  the  public  as 
required  by  law.  Sec.  1797/77-28  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law  provides  that 
all  rules  and  regulations  which  in  any  manner  affect  the  rates  charged, 
shall  be  filed  as  a  part  of  the  '-'Schedule"  of  rates.  As  to  the  extent- of 
publicity  to  be  given  that  schedule,  the  next  following  section  provides 
that  "a  copy  *  *  *  shall  be  printed  in  plain  type  and  kept  *  *  *  open 
to  the  public,  in  such  form  and  place  as  to  be  readily  accessible  to  the 
public,  and  as  can  be  conveniently  inspected."  Held:  That  there  i§ 
nothing  in  the  testimony  to  show  that  the  respondent  has  violated  these 
provisions  of  the  law.  Complaint  is  dismissed.  Davis  et  at.  v.  Wis.  Tel. 
Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  370,  371,  383. 

Filing  of  rules  and  regulations  with  Commission. 

6.  The  company  had  the  right  and  it  was  its  duty  to  file  all  its  rules 
and  regulations  with  the  Commission  as  provided  by  law  in  order  that 
the  same  might  be  legally  effective.  So  long  as  such  rules  are  filed  as 
required  by  statute,  they  are  binding  upon  the  company  and  its  patrons. 
In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  142. 

Published  rules  governing  service  and  charges  must  be  applied 
impartially. 

7.  All  utility  companies  are  required  by  law  to  file  rules  and  regula- 
tions and  charges  governing  connections  with  consumers  and  everything 


410 Schedules  for  Utilities 

related  thereto.  These  rules  and  charges  govern  in  all  cases,  under 
substantially  similar  conditions,  whether  the  applicant  for  service  is  an 
entirely  new  or  a  former  patron  who  has  returned  to  the  company.  If 
the  service  which  the  company  is  required  to  perform  for  both  new  and 
former  patrons  is  the  same,  the  charge  must  be  the  same.  Any  variation 
in  the  charge,  assuming  similar  conditions,  would  be  unjust  discrimination 
prohibited  by  law.     Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  370,  372-373. 

Schedules  to  be  filed  with  Commission. 

8.  The  statute  requires  every  public  utility  to  file  with  the  Commis- 
sion schedules  of  all  rates,  tolls  and  charges  which  it  has  established,  and 
also,  as  a  part  of  such  schedules,  "all  rules  and  regulations  that  in  any 
manner  affect  the  rates  charged  or  to  be  charged  for  any  service. " 
(Wisconsin  Stats.,  sec.  1797/71-27  and  sec.  1797/n-28.)  National  Travelers' 
Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  678,  688. 

Water  utility  to  be  given  choice  of  schedules  contained  in  order 
of  Commission. 

9.  Two  schedules  have  been  evolved:  Schedule  A,  based  upon  the 
assumption  that  the  city  of  Sheboygan  pays  an  increased  fire  service 
charge;  and  Schedule  B,  based  upon  the  assumption  that  no  change  is 
made  in  the  present  charge  of  this  service  to  the  city.  Two  forms  of 
each  of  the  flat  rate  portions  of  the  schedules  are  submitted.  Dennett 
et  al.  V.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  C.  634,  650. 

10.  Three  schedules  of  rates  are  designed  to  fit  the  different  condi- 
tions which  may  arise,  depending  upon  the  attitude  of  the  city  toward 
assuming  the  burden  of  fire  protection.  The  utility  may  choose  any  one 
of  these  schedules.  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  W.  Wks.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
669,  687. 

SCHEDULES  OR  TARIFFS. 

See  also  Classification;  Rates — Railroad;  Reparation. 


I.  AGREEMENT  WITH  SHIPPER   RELATING  TO   RATES. 

II.  CHANGE  IN  TARIFF. 

III.  DEPARTURE   FROM   PUBLISHED   TARIFF  PROHIBITED. 

IV.  PUBLICATION   OF  RATES  AND   CHARGES. 

V.  WHEN  TARIFF  BECOMES  LEGALLY  EFFECTIVE. 


I.  AGREEMENT  WITH  SHIPPERS  RELATING  TO  RATES. 

Agreement  for  different  rate  than  that  stated  in  published  sched- 
ule. 

1.  Rates  are  legally  effective  only  when  filed  and  published  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  statute.  It  is  incumbent  upon  every  shipper  to 
ascertain  the  lawful  rate  that  may  be  exacted  for  any  proposed  transporta- 
tion of  goods  before  billing  the  same.  If  he  neglects  to  do  so,  or  is  willing 
to  accept  the  quotation  of  an  agent  of  the  railway  company,  he  acts  at 


Schedules  or  Tariffs. — Change  in  tariff 411 

his  peril.  {Poor  Grain  Co.  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  12  I.  C.  C.  R.  423.) 
Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  700,  701; 
Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54,  55; 
Price  V.  W.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  467,  469;  Barney  v.  G.  B.  Sc 
W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  775;  Osceola  Mill  and  Elevator  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  291,  292. 

2.  WTienever  the  schedule  rate  in  effect  is  prohibitive  or  inapplicable 
to  the  transportation  of  any  commodity,  it  is  incumbent  upon  shippers  to 
see  in  advance  of  shipments  of  such  commodity  that  a  proper  rate  is 
made  effective,  unless  perchance  the  exigency  of  the  situation  will  not 
admit  of  delay  or  the  railway  company  will  not  accede  to  the  demand  for  a 
different  rate  than  the  one  prescribed  by  its  schedule.  Menasha  Wooden 
Ware  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  589,  591. 

3.  Any  agreement  entered  into  by  a  railway  company  with  a  shipper 
respecting  the  establishment  of  a  rate,  but  which  agreed  rate  has  not 
been  made  effective  before  the  contemplated  shipments  are  made,  is 
immaterial  on  the  question  of  a  refund,  as  the  latter  must  be  determined 
by  the  rate  actually  charged.  Osceola  Mill  and  Elevator  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P. 
&  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  291,  292. 


II.  CHANGE  IN  TARIFF. 

Authority  of  Commission  in  change  of  tariff.  ^ 

4.  The  cancellation  of  a  rate  that  is  not  illegal  requires  the  approval 
of  the  Commission  under  sec.  1797-4a  of  the  Statutes.  Marinette-Green 
Bay  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  133,  135. 

Authority  of  Commission  to  order  changes  in  tariflfs. 

5.  The  only  remedy  provided  for  altering  rates,  when  found  by  the 
Commission  to  be  unjust  and  unreasonable,  is  that  prescribed  by  the 
statute.  Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C. 
116;  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  778. 

Change  in  construction  placed  on  classification. 

6.  Where  a  certain  express  rate  had  been  charged  in  accordance  with 
the  construction  placed  on  the  classification  for  a  period  of  twenty  or 
twenty-five  years,  no  change  in  such  construction,  resulting  in  higher 
rates,  should  have  been  made  by  the  carrier  without  reasonable  notice 
to  interested  shippers.     Gross  u.  U.  S.  Express  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  342,  345. 

Effect  of  change  ordered  by  Commission. 

7.  Any  change  made  by  the  Commission  in  any  rates  because  they  are 
unreasonable,  only  operates  to  make  such  rates  unjust  and  unreasonable 
from  the  time  of  the  taking  effect  of  the  new  or  substituted  rates.  Oshkosh 
Logging  Tool  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  116;  Connor  Land  & 
Lbr.  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  774,  778. 


412  Sched.  or  Tar. — Departure  from  puhVd  tariff  prohibited 


III.  DEPARTURE  FROM  PUBLISHED  TARIFF  PROHIBITED. 

In  general. 

8.  All  schedules  of  rates  printed  and  filed  as  required  by  the  act  are 
legal  and  binding  upon  both  the  shipper  and  carrier  until  changed  by  the 
Commission.  Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
2  R.  C.  116;  Shong  &  Son  v.  S.  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  40,  41 
Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54,  56 
Fountain-Campbell  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  63,  64 
Wis.  Coal  Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  339,  341;  Strauss  v.  American 
Express  Co.  et  at.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  570;  Barney  u.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1910,  4  R.  C.  775,  777;  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  518,  519;  Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  G.  774,  777;  Marinette-Green  Bay  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  133,  134-135. 

Mistake  in  quoting  rate  no  excuse  for  departure. 

9.  Errors  in  billing,  or  erroneous  quotations  of  rates  by  agents  of 
railway  companies,  do  not  relieve  the  shipper  of  the  obligation  of  paying 
the  lawful  rates  prescribed  in  the  published  tariffs,  nor  are  the  railway 
companies  for  any  such  reasons  permitted  to  exact  less  than  such  rates. 
Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  54,  56; 
Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  556,  571;  Mayer  v. 
I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  268,  269;  Barney  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1910,  4  R.  G.  775,  777;  Wheeler-Timlin  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1910,  6  R.  G.  434,  435. 

Request  from  connecting  carrier  no  excuse  for  departure. 

10.  The  fact  that  the  connecting  carrier  requested  track  scale  weights 
to  be  made  by  the  respondent,  did  not  justify  a  charge  other  than  the  one 
prescribed  in  the  published  tariff.  Shong  Sc  Son  v.  S.  M.  Sc  P.  R.  Co., 
1908,  3  R.  a  40,  41. 

IV.  PUBLIGATION  OF  RATES  AND  GHARGES. 

Definition  of  published  rate. 

11.  The  word  "publish"  itself  has  no  technical  legal  significance.  To 
arrive  at  its  meaning  in  a  statute  we  must  have  recourse  to  a  lexicog- 
rapher. The  meaning  of  the  word  is  perhaps  as  well  understood  as  is  any 
definition  of  it.  As  soon  as  the  tariff  in  question  was  issued  by  the  Wis. 
Gentral  Ry.  Go.  and  copies  of  it  were  sent  to  the  stations  at  which  the 
commodities  moving  under  it  were  received  and  delivered,  and  a  copy 
was  sent  to  the  party  moving  freight  thereunder,  we  think  such  tariff 
was  made  known  or  divulged  or  proclaimed  or  promulgated,  and  that 
it  was  therefore  published  within  the  meaning  of  the  law.  Menasha 
Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  108,  115. 

Purpose  of  requiring  publication. 

12.  That  shippers  and  travelers  may  be  advised  at  all  times  of  the 
rates  and  charges  which   a  railway  company  may  lawfully  exact  for 


Scope  of  Law  413 


transportation  services,  the  law  requires  that  two  copies  of  its  schedules 
"for  th^  use  of  the  public  shall  be  filed  and  kept  on  file  in  every  depot, 
station  and  office  of  such  railroad  where  passengers  or  freight  are  received 
for  transportation,  in  such  form  and  place  as  to  be  accessible  to  the  public 
and  can  be  conveniently  inspected."  Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54,  56;  Fountain-Campbell  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  63,  64;  Strauss  v.  American  Express 
Co.  et  al,  1909,  3  R.  G.  556,  571;  Barney  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  775,  776-777. 

Statutory  requirement  as  to  publication  and  filing. 

13.  Section  1797-4  of  the  Wisconsin  Statiites  requires  the  respondent 
express  companies  to  print  in  plain  type  and  file  with  the  Gommission 
schedules  showing  all  rates  and  charges  for  the  transportation  of 
property,  and  any  service  in  connection  therewith,  which  it  has  established 
and  which  are  in  force  at  the  time  between  points  in  this  state.  Two 
copies  of  such  schedules  for  the  use  of  the  public  shall  be  filed  and  kept 
on  file  in  every  office  or  station  of  the  company  where  freight  is  received 
for  transportation  in  such  form  and  place  as  to  be  accessible  to  the  public 
and  convenient  for  inspection.  Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  556,  570-571. 


V.  WHEN  TARIFF  BEGOMES  LEGALLY  EFFEGTIVE. 

Conditions  precedent — Filing  schedules  at  stations. 

14.  In  order  to  make  a  tariff  legally  effective,  the  schedules  must  be 
filed  in  every  station  "at  places  to  or  from  which  the  rates  in  such  schedules 
apply."  Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
597,  599. 

Filing  schedules  with  the  Commission. 

15.  In  order  to  make  a  tariff  legally  effective  it  must  be  filed  with  the 


Gommission.     Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  G.  597,  598;  Whittet  v.  C.  M.  6c  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  480,  482. 

Publication  of  schedules  under  the   Interstate  Commerce 

Act. 

16.  The  filing  of  a  schedule  of  rates  with  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Gommission  and  the  furnishing  by  the  railroad  company  of  copies  thereof 
to  its  freight  agents  incontrovertibly  evidenced  that  the  tariff  of  rates 
contained  in  the  schedule  had  been  established  and  put  in  force  and 
neither  the  shipper  nor  the  railroad  company  could  have  been  heard  to 
assert  to  the  contrary.  (Texas  Sc  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Cisco  Oil  Mill,  1907, 
204,  U.  S.  449.)  Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  G.  597,  599. 

SCOPE  OF  LAW. 

See  Public  Utilities  Law;  Railroad  Law;  Stock  and     Bond 

Law;  Water  Power  Law. 


414  Scrapers 


SCRAPERS.  • 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad 
200. 

SCRAP  IRON. 

Reasonableness  of  switching  rates  on  scrap  iron,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
279. 

SECURITIES. 

Issue  by  Commission  of  license  to  deal  in  securities,  see  License,  1. 

Securities  of  public  utilities  as  investments. 

1.  Securities  of  public  utilities  that  are  not  overcapitalized  ought  to 
be  among  the  safest  of  investments.  Such  utilities  are  monopolistic  in 
their  nature  and  therefore  not  often  exposed  to  all  the  hazards  of  com- 
petition. The  services  they  render  are,  in  most  instances,  necessities. 
They  are  of  such  nature  that  people  cannot  often  get  along  without  them. 
Conditions  are  also  usually  such  that  these  services  can  be  furnished  at 
rates  that  are  low  enough  to  insure  takers,  and  at  the  same  time  high 
enough  to  cover  operating  expenses,  including  fair  returns  on  the  invest- 
ment.    Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  W.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  754. 

2.  The  benefits  that  might  accrue  from  having  the  securities  placed 
among  the  people  which  the  plants  are  serving,  cannot  easily  be  over- 
estimated. But  such  local  markets,  particularly  among  the  small 
investors,  are  not  likely  to  be  more  generally  developed  until  it  has  been 
fully  demonstrated  that  the  plants  are  safely  and  conservatively  managed. 
Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  W.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  755. 

SECURITY. 

Regulations  as  to  payment  of  rates  for  services  rendered  by  public  utility, 
requirement  of  security,  see  Rules  and  Regulations,  21-26. 

SEED  PEAS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  seed  peas,  see  Rates — Railroad,  280. 

m 

SEEDS. 

Minimum  weights,  double  minimum  on  mixed  carloads  of  grains  and  seeds, 
see  Weights,  12. 

SELF  SUPPORTING. 

Not  necessary  that  each  branch  or  section  of  the  system  of  a  railroad  be 
self-supporting  before  additional  service  is  furnished,  see  Rail- 
roads, 89. 


Service  and  Facilities  415 


SEPARATION  OF  GRADES. 

Separation  of  grades  for  elimination  of  railroad  crossings,  see  Railroads, 
52-55. 

SERVICE. 

Minimum  service,  certain  minimum  service  must  be  performed  by  common 

carrier  regardless  of  financial  conditions  and  amount  of  return, 

see  Railroads,  85. 
Quality  of  service  as  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  146. 
Standards  of  service  established  by  Commission,  see  Electric  Utilities, 

53-55;  Gas  Utilities,  8-11;  Telephone  Utilities,  61. 

Adequate  service — What  constitutes  adequate  service. 

1.  "Adequate  service  is  not  necessarily  the  best  service  which  it  is 

possible  to  give,  but  rather  the  best  service  which  can  be  given  with  due 

regard  to  economy  to  the  consumer  and  to  the  company."     In  re  Standards 

for  Gas  and  Electric  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  632,  642;  Vill.  of  Sharon  v. 

United  Heat  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  1,  5. 


SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. 

Jurisdiction  of   Commission  over  service  and  facilities,   see  Railroad 

Commission,  32-107.  , 

Bridges. — Highway  bridges  over  which  railroads  are  operated,  safety  of, 

see  Bridges,  1. 
Toll  bridges,  requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities,  repairs  for  safety 

and  convenience  of  public,  see  Bridges,  2. 
Dams. — Necessity    of   repairs,    opinion    of    Gommission    on   request    of 

company,  see  Water  Pov^^ers,  2. 
Electric  Utilities. — Appliances  for  the  measurement  of  product  or 

service,  duty  of  utility  to  provide  meters,  see  Electric  Utilities, 

46-47. 
Duty  of  utility  to  provide  suitable  transformers  and  lightning  arresters, 

see  Electric  Utilities,  48. 
Quality  of  service,  performance  of  street  lighting  system,  see  Electric 

Utilities,  29-37. 
Refusal   of  service   for  nonpayment    of    bills   rendered,   see  Electric 

Utilities,  52. 
Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities,  adequacy  of  service,  see  Electric 

Utilities,  39-45. 
Standards  of  service,  see  Electric  Utilities,  53-55. 
Express    Companies. — Requirements    with    respect    to    delivery,    see 

Express  Companies,  2-3. 
Gas  Utilities. — ^^Appliances  for  the  measurement  of  product  or  service, 

duty  of  utility  to  provide  meters,  see  Gas  Utilities,  4-6. 
Refusal  of  service  for  nonpayment  of  bills  rendered,  see  Gas  Utilities,  7. 


416  Service  and  Facilities 

Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities,  adequacy  of  service,  see  Gas 

Utilities,  1-3. 
Standards  of  service,  see  Gas  Utilities,  8-11. 
Heating  Utilities. — Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities,  regulating 

devices,  thermostats,  see  Heating  Utilities,  3-4. 
Interurban    Railways. — Requirements    as    to    service    and    facilities, 

adequacy  of  service,  see  Interurban  Railways,  14-19. 
Station  facilities,  see  Station  Facilities. 
Public  Utilities. — Power  of  state  to  regulate  service  and  facilities,  see 

Public  Utilities,  2-4,  8-9. 

Railroads. — Duty  of  carrier  to  furnish  size  and  kind  of  car  adapted  {o 
the  shipment  to  be  made,  see  Railroads,  78. 

Elevator  facilities,  see  Railroads,  83;  Warehouses. 

Express  facilities,  see  Railroads,  84. 

Interlocking  plants,  see  Railroads,  60. 

Motor  car  service,  adequacy  of  service,  see  Train  Service,  18. 

Special  equipment,  see  Railroads,  92. 

Station  facilities,  see  Station  Facilities. 

Switching  service,  see  Railroads,  93-94;  Switch  Connections,  27-28. 

Telephone  facilities,  see  Railroads,  97;  Station  Facilities,  32-35. 

Track  connections,  see  Connecting  Carriers,  3-4;  Switch  Connections, 
25-26. 

Traffic,  interchange  of,  see  Connecting  Carriers,  1;  Switch  Connec- 
tions, 27. 

Train  schedules,  see  Train  Schedules. 

Train  service,  see  Train  Service. 

Transit  privileges,  see  Transit  Privileges. 

Street  Railways. — Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities,  adequacy 

of  service,  see  Street  Railways,  27-49. 
Carrying  of  freight,  see  Street  Railways,  31. 
Extensions  and  additions,  see  Street  Railways,  16-17. 
Interlocking  plants,  see  Street  Railways,  18. 

Telegraph  Companies. — Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities, 
adequacy  of  service,  see  Telegraph  Companies,  1. 

Telephone  Utilities. — Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities, 
adequacy  of  service,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  43-54. 

Duty  of  utility  to  provide  instruments,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  55. 

Extension  of  lines,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  8-25. 

Physical  connection,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  31-41. 

Standards  of  service,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  61. 

Withdrawal  of  service,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  57-60. 

Warehouses. — Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities,  special  bins, 

see  Warehouses,  5. 
Water  Utilities. — Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities,  adequacy 

of  service,  see  Water  Utilities,  23-26. 
Appliances  for  the  measurement  of  product  or  service,  duty  of  utility  to 

provide  meters,  see  Water  Utilities,  27-31. 
Extension  of  mains,  see  Water  Utilities,  3-12. 
Quality  of  water,  see  Water  Utilities,  36-38. 


Shipping  Contract  417 


Services,  duty  of  utility  to  provide  services,  see  Water  Utilities,  39-40. 
Services,  leaks  in  services,  see  Water  Utilities,  41. 
Standards  of  service,  see  Water  Utilities,  43-45. 

SERVICE  CHARGES. 

See    Minimum    Charges;    Rates — Electric;    Rates — Gas;    Rates — 

Water. 

SERVICE  CONNECTIONS. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  110-111. 

SERVICES. 

Duty  of  utility  to  provide  services,  see  Water  Utilities,  39-40. 

SERVICE  VALUE. 

Determination  of  the  value  of  property  of  .public  utilities,  plant  must  be 
considered  as  a  going  concern,  see  Valuation,  38-41,  164. 

SERVITUDE. 

Additional  servitude  upon  highway  occupied  for  interurban  operation, 
see  Franchises,  14. 

SEWERiFLUSHING  RATES. 

See  Rates — Water,  87. 

SHIPMENT  COSTS. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  express  companies,  see  Rates — 

Express,  4. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates  for  express 

companies,  see  Rates — Express,  10-11. 

SHIPPER. 

Duty  of  shipper  to  ascertain  the  lawful  rate  before  making  shipment,  see 

Railroads,  66-67. 
Needs  of  shipper  as  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  142. 

SHIPPING  CONTRACT. 

See  Contract  of  Shipment. 

14 


418 Shipping  Directions 


SHIPPING  DIRECTIONS. 

Duty  of  railroad  company  with  respect  to  shipping  directions,  see  Rail- 
roads, 102. 

SHIPPING  FACILITIES. 

See  Station  Facilities;  Switch  Connections. 

SHOCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  box  shooks,  see  Rates — Railroad,  210. 

SHORT  HAUL. 

Length  of  haul  as  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — 
Railroad,  136-137. 

SHORT  AND  LONG  HOUR  USE. 

'As  element  considered  in  making  electric  rates,  see  Rates — Elegdric, 

30-33. 
Discrimination  between  consumers  of  electric  utility  due  to  failure  to 

observe  difference  in  cost  between  long  and  short  hour  use  of 

current,  see  Discrimination,  9. 

SHORT  TIME  RATE. 

Rate  for  short  time  or  seasonal  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  88;  Rates- 
Telephone,  70-71. 

SHUTTLE  TRAIN. 

Operation  of  shuttle  train  considered  dangerous  under  certain  conditions, 
see  Train  Service,  22. 

SIDETRACK  FACILITIES. 

See  Switch  Connections. 

SIGNAL  LIGHTS. 

Installation  of,  see  Railroads,  22. 

SIGNAL  PROTECTION. 

Signal  protection  for  spur  track,  see  Switch  Connections,  22. 

SIGNAL  SYSTEM. 

Installation  of  signal  system  for  protection  of  railroad-by-railroad  crossing, 
see  Railroads,  58. 


Slabs 419 

SIGN  BOARD. 

Erection  of  sign  board  at  railroad  crossing,  see  Railroads,  33. 

SIGN  OR  DISPLAY  LIGHTING. 

Rates  for  sign  or  display  lighting,  see  Rates — Electric,  7. 

SIGNS. 

Street  railway  car  signs,  see  Street  Railways,  45. 

"SILENT  NUMBER"  TELEPHONES. 

Provision  of  "silent  number"  telephones  not  an  unjust  discrimination,  see 
Discrimination,  104. 

SILENT  RINGING  TELEPHONES. 

Charge  for  installing  and  rates  for  service,  see  Rates — Telephone,  72. 

SILOS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on.  silos,  see  Rates — Railroad,  281. 

SINGLE  FARE  LIMITS. 

For  street  railways,  see  Rates — Street  Railway,  6. 

SINGLE  PACKAGES. 

Must  go  to  single  consignee. 

1.  Rule  of  express  company  requiring  that  only  commodities  intended 
for  a  single  consignee  shall  be  shipped  in  a  single  package,  held  to  be 
reasonable.     Souvenir  Novelty  Co.  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  731. 

SINKING  FUND. 

Inclusion  of  sinking  fund  charge  for  retiring  bonds  as  an  element  in  making 
rates  for  municipal  public  utilities,  discrimination  in  favor  of 
taxpayers  as  against  consumers,  see  Discrimination,  45. 

SIZE  OF  SHIPMENT. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates  for  express 
companies,  see  Rates — Express,  12. 

SLABS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  slabs,  see  Rates — Railroad,  282. 


420  Slab  Wood 


SLAB  WOOD. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  slab  wood,  see  Rates — Railroad,  302. 

SLAG. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  slag,  see  Rates— Railroad,  283. 

SLEEPING  CAR  SERVICE. 

See  Train  Service,  23. 

SLIDING  SCALE  MINIMUM. 

See  Weights,  8. 

SMALL  POWER  OR  INCIDENTAL  APPLIANCES. 

Rates  for  small  power  or  incidental  electrical  appliances,  see  Rates — 

Electric,  5,  8. 
Treatment    of   incidental    electrical    appliances   in    determining    active 

lighting  load,  see  Rates — Electric,  15-16. 

SPACE. 

Relation  of  weight  of  article  to  space  occupied  as  element  considered  in 
making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  151-152. 

SPECIAL  BINS. 

Special  bins  in  grain  elevators  deemed  impracticable,  see  Warehouses,  5. 

SPECIAL  CONTRACTS. 

See  Contracts;  Contract  of  Shipment. 

Special  contracts  with  large  users  of  electrical  power,  see  Rates — Elec- 
tric, 89-90. 

Special  contract  rates  are  lawful  provided  they  are  open  to  all  shippers  of  a 
like  kind  of  trafTKi  under  similar  circumstances  and  conditions, 
^     see  Rates — Railroad,  62. 

SPECIAL  EQUIPMENT. 

Railroad  service  and  facilities,  provision  for  special  equipment,  see 
Railroads,  310. 

SPECIAL  RATES. 

Status  of  special  rates  provided  for  in  contracts  entered  into  before  the 
passage  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law,  see  Rates — Telephone, 
10-11. 


Standard  Cars  421 


SPECIAL  SERVICE  RATES. 

Special   service   rates,   different   rates   for   different   classes   of  railroad 
service,  see  Rates — Railroad,  12-103,  310-322. 
of  telephone  service,  see  Rates — Telephone,  1,  3-11,  17-19,  30-31, 
44,  70,  72,  77. 

SPECIFICATION. 

Approval  of  specification  for  construction  of  railroad,  see  Railroads,  2. 

SPECULATION. 

Public  Convenience  and  Necessity  Law,  purpose  of,  to  prevent  objection 
to  railway  lines  for  speculative  purposes,  see  Certificate  of 
Public  Convenience  and  Necessity,  6. 

SPECULATIVE  GAINS. 

Speculative  gains  as  element  in  profits,  see  Return,  38-40. 
Speculative   gains   should   be   recognized    under   competitive   condition 
only,  see  Valuation,  26. 

SPEED  OF  TRAINS. 

Limitation  of  speed  of  trains  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see 
Railroads,  31. 

"SPOTTING"  OF  FREIGHT  CARS. 

"Spotting"  of  freight  cars  on  public  street,  see  Switch  Connections,  24. 

SPRINGS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  vehicle  springs,  see  Rates— Railroads,  284. 

SPRINKLER  SYSTEM. 

Rates  for  sprinkler  systems,  see  Rates — Water,  4-5. 

SPUR  TRACKS. 

See  Switch  Connections. 
Operation  of  a  spur  track  as  a  private  highway,  see  Railroads,  74. 

STANDARD  CARS. 

Relation  of  jimmy  cars  to  standard  cars,  see  Rates — Railroad,  13. 


422  Standards  of  Service 


STANDARDS  OF  SERVICE. 

For  electric  utilities,  see  Electric  Utilities,  53-55. 

For  gas  utilities,  see  Gas  Utilities,  8-11. 

For  telephone  utilities,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  61. 

"STANDBY"   OR  EMERGENCY  SERVICE. 

Rates  for  emergency  or  "standby"   service,  see  Rates — Electric,   9; 
Rates — Water,  3. 

STANDPIPES. 

Rates  for  standpipes  for  private  fire  protection,  see  Rates — Water,  4-5. 

STAPLES,  NAILS,  BARBWIRE  AND  WIRE  FENCING. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  staples,  nails,  etc.,  see  Rates — Railroad,  297. 

STATE  REGULATION. 

Public  utilities,  legislative  regulation  of,  through  comrriissions,  see  Public 

Utilities,  8. 
Public  utilities,  safety  of  public  utility  investments  under  puWic  utility 

legislation,  see  Investments,  1.  .       • 

STATE  STATUTES. 

Statutes  aflfecting  interstate  commerce — Telegrams. 

1.  A  statute  requiring  telegraph  companies  to  receive  messages  and  , 
to  transmit  them  upon  tender  of  the  proper  charge,  and  to  deliver  them 
with  due  diligence  to  the  addressee  is  a  proper  exercise  of  the  police  power 
of  the  state  in  relation  to  messages  received  from  points  without  the  state 
and  addressed  to  persons  at  points  within  the  state.  Such  a  statute  is  of  a 
nature  that  is  in  aid  of  the  performance  of  a  duty  of  the  company  that 
would  exist  in  the  absence  of  any  such  statute,  and  it  is  in  nowise  obstruc- 
tive of  its  duty  as  a  telegraph  company.  So  long  as  congress  is  silent 
upon  the  subject,  we  think  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  state  government 
to  enact  legislation  of  this  nature.  {Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.  v. 
James,  1896,  162  U.  S.  650.)  Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  572-573. 

Validity  of  state  enactment  on  a  subject  over  which  the  state  and 
federal  authorities  have  concurrent  jurisdiction. 

2.  The  question  of  the  validity  of  a  statute  enacted  under  the  police 
power  of  a  state  on  a  subject  over  which  the  state  and  the  federal 
authorities  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  and  over  which  the  federal 
authority  has  assumed  to  exercise  jurisdiction,  is  not  a  mere  question  of 
conflicting  laws  in  the  two  jurisdictions,  so  that  the  law  of  a  state  will  be 
valid  so  far  as  not  antagonistic  to  a  federal  law.  ,The  question  is  more 
properly  one  of  jurisdiction  over  the  subject;  the  holding  being  that 
within  the  second  class  of  subjects  as  outlined  in  Covington,  etc..  Bridge 


Station  Facilities  423 


Co.  V.  Kentucky,  1894,  154  U.  S.  204,  silence  of  congress  is  deemed  a  rele- 
gation to  the  state  of  such  jurisdiction  and  authority,  but  action  by  con- 
gress upon  the  particular  subject  is  deemed  an  assertion  of  the  federal 
power,  a  declaration  of  the  policy  that  the  subject  shall  be  under  federal 
and  not  state  regulation,  and  that,  therefore,  the  power  shall  no  longer 
rest  in  the  state  to  exercise  that  authority  which  by  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States  was  surrendered  to  the  federal  government  when  and 
if  congress  deemed  its  exercise  advisable.     (State  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1908,  117  N.  W.  [Wis.]  689.)      Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al; 

1909,  3  R.  C.  556,  574. 

STATION. 

* 

Deiinition  of  railroad  station. 

1.  If  a  place  at  which  passengers  and  freight  are  received  and  dis- 
charged by  a  railway  company  is  a  station,  regardless  of  whether  a  depot 
building  is  erected  or  not,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  mere  receiving  and 
discharging  of  freight  ^nd  passengers  satisfies  the  requirements  of  sec. 
1801.  That  section  requires  not  only  the  maintenance  of  a  "station" 
under  certain  conditions,  but  also  requires  the  carrier  to  "provide  the 
necessary  arrangements,  receive  and  discharge  freight  and  passengers," 
etc.  The  necessary  arrangements  to  receive  and  discharge  freight,  we 
assume,  would  include  the  furnishing  of  a  suitable  warehouse  where  the 
same  could  be  temporarily  kept  so  as  to  preserve  it  from  the  elements  and 
from  theft.  This  would  necessarily  mean  that  some  one  should  be  placed 
in  charge  of  such  warehouse  to  receive  and  deliver  freight.  It  might 
be  said  that  it  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  receive  and  discharge  passengers 
that  shelter  should  be  provided  for  them  while  they  are  waiting  for  trains. 
Yet  it  has  been  held  under  a  statute  providing  that,  "Railroads  having 
for  their  principal  object  the  public  accommodation,  the  proprietors 
thereof  shall  be  bound  to  provide  crossings,  stations,  and  other  facilities 
for  the  public,"  a  railway  company  was  liable  in  damages  to  a  passenger 
for  a  disease  contracted  while  waiting  for  a  train  at  a  station  during 
inclement  weather,  because  the  depot  building  was  not  heated.  (Boothby 
V.  Grant  T.  R.,  34  At.  157  [N.  H.j).  If  the  stopping  of  trains  to  receive 
and  discharge  passengers  and  freight  does  not  make  Forestville  a  station 
in  the  absence  of  an  agent  or  station  building,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
company  under  sec.  1801  to  establish  a  station  at  such  place.  If  Forest- 
ville is  a  station  now,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  railway  company  to  furnish  a 
freight  and  passenger  depot  under  sec.  1797-9.  Perry  u.  A.  ScW.  R.  Co., 
1906,  1  R.  C.  223,  229,  230. 

STATION  FACILITIES. 

See  also  Switch  Connections;    Train  Service. 


I.      IN   GENERAL. 
II.      INTERURBAN   RAILWAYS. 
III.      RAILROADS. 


424  Station  Facilities. — In  general 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

Carrier  to  be  permitted   wide  latitude  in  determining  character 
of  facilities. 

1.  Relative  to  the  size  and  character  of  the  building,  we  may  say  that 
the  railway  company  is  in  position  to  determine  more  accurately  such 
matters  than  anyone  else.  All  of  these  are  factors  regarding  which  the 
Commission  has  no  definite  knowledge,  and  even  if  it  had  this  knowledge, 
it  would  scarcely  be  justified  in  prescribing,  with  requisite  detail,  matters 
relating  to  such  a  thing  as  the  construction  of  a  railway  station.  We  do 
not  believe  that  in  the  present  case  we  should  prescribe  the  exact  dimen- 
sions of  the  proposed  station.  That  should  properly  be  left,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  the  best  judgment  of  the  railway  company,  and  if  the  kind  of  a 
station  which  the  railway  company  may  construct  should  prove  to  be 
inadequate  the  Commission  will  then  entertain  a  complaint  with  reference 
to  the  same  and  render  such  a  decision  as  the  merits  of  the  question  may 
warrant.  Lieneman  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  88,  91;  Nelson 
et  al.  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  764,  768. 

Carrier  to  be  permitted  wide  latitude  in  determining  necessity 
for  new  stations. 

2.  The  railroad  company  must  be  permitted  a  wide  latitude  in 
determining  the  necessity  for  and  the  order  in  which  stations  which  are 
no  longer  adequate  or  serviceablje,  shall  be  replaced  with  new  and  modern 
structures.     Hawes  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  565,  568. 

Duty  of  carrier  to  provide  adequate  station  facilities. 

3.  The  fact  that  passengers  have  been  permitted  to  wait  for  trains  in 
a  store  near  the  depot  does  not  relieve  a  railroad  company  of  its  duty  to 
provide  adequate  statioh  facilities.  Cross  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  C.  421,  423. 

Location  of  stations. 

4.  There  is  some  doubt  about  the  propriety  of  this  Commission 
establishing  definite  locations  for  depot  buildings  where  such  stations  are 
ordered  to  be  furnished.  In  deference  to  the  apparent  wishes  of  both 
parties  to  the  hearing,  we  concluded  in  this  instance  to  fix  such  location 
as  we  thought  under  all  the  circumstances  would  be  proper.  Pullen  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  60,  65. 

5.  Mere  distance  is  and  should  not  be  the  controlling  factor  in 
determining  the  location  of  stations,  but  the  convenience  of  the  public 
must  be  the  important^onsideration  in  such  determination.  Travelers' 
Prot.  Assn.  of  America  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  333,  335. 

6.  The  choice  of  the  actual  site  for  a  station  is  properly  a  function  of 
the  management  of  a  railroad  company  and  should  not  be  interfered  with 
unless  it  is  established  that  adequate  service  or  safety  of  the  public  is 


Station  Facilities. — Railroads 425 

endangered.  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
8  R.  G.  719;  City  of  New  Richmond  v.  M.  St.  P.  (^  S.  S.  M.  R,  Co.,  1915, 
15R.  C.615. 

Minimum  service  requirements. 

7.  There  is  a  certain  minimum  service  to  which  every  community 
served  by  a  common  carrier  is  entitled,  quite  independent  of  the  fmancial 
results.     Hemmis  et  al.  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  626,  628-629. 

Traffic  conditions,  influence  of.  ' 

8.  To  require  railway  companies  to  construct  new  stations  and  install 
agents  at  places  where  the  volume  of  trafTic  does  not  warrant  such  ex- 
penditure would  place  an  unjust  burden  upon  the  traffic  in  general.  Milan 
Store  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  399,  402. 

Use  of  private  commercial  dock  of  railroad  company  for  public 
convenience. 

9.  The  statutes  do  not  confer  authority  upon  the  Gommission  to 
require  facilities  for  the  interchange  of  traffic  between  land  and  water 
carriers,  but  were  such  the  case,  and  assuming  that  respondent's  con- 
templated action  involves  the  abandonment  of  one  of  its  public 
functions,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  instant  situation  would  demand  positive 
action  of  the  Commission;  Brown  v.  Janesville  Street  Railway  Co.,  4  R.  G. 
757,  761;  Jack  v.  Williams,  113  Fed.  823;  Covington,  etc.  Turnpike  Co.  v. 
Sanford,  164,  U.  S.  578.  A  railway  company  should  not  be  required  to 
maintain  and  offer  its  facilities  to  the  public  as  a  gratuity,  the  maintenance 
of  the  dock  and  wharf  being  desired  solely  for  the  purpose  of  accom- 
modating the  public,  irrespective  of  its  necessities  in  reaching  the  property 
of  the  company  to  obtain  railroad  service.  The  property  in  question  is 
essentially  private  in  character,  and  subject  to  the  control  of  the  company, 
and  the  company  is  not  required  to  permit  the  continued  use  of  its  dock 
or  wharf  simply  because  the  public  had  heretofore  been  allowed  the  use  of 
the  dock  as  a  licensee.  (Transportation  Co.  v.  Parkersbiirg,  107  U.  S.  691.) 
City  of  Ashland  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  816. 

II.   INTERURBAN  RAILWAYS. 

Adequacy  of  station  facilities — In  general. 

\  10.  Question  of  adequacy  of  facilities  in  general  passed  upon.  In  re 
Invest.  La  Crosse  &  0.  St.  Ry.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  124;  Mahoney  v.  C.  & 
M.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  578;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  & 
L.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  89;  City  of  Kenosha  v.  C.  &  M.  El.  Ry.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  257;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  98-99. 

III.  RAILROADS. 

Adequacy  of  station  facilities — Agent. 

11.  Determination  of  necessity  for  employment  of  station  agent. 
Grossman  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  254;  Pischel  v.  C.  St. 
P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  783;  Village  of  Lohrville  u.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 


426 Station  Facilities. — Railroads 

Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  699;  Chrisfenson  ef  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912, 

9  R.  G.  477;  Bacon  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  366;  Pukall  et  al. 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R,  C.  427;  Pritchard  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  625. 

Adequacy  of  station  facilities — Approaches. 

12.  The  maintenance  of  the  driveway  in  question  cannot  be  regarded 
as  incumbent  upon  the  railway  company,  but  it  is  suggested  that  the 
company  cooperate  with  the  local  authorities,  as  it  has  expressed  its 
willingness  to  do,  in  maintaining  the  road  in  good  condition.  Acheson  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  564. 

Caretaker. 

13.  Rai'road  ordered  to  employ  caretaker  to  care  for  station  building. 
Perry  v.  A.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  223;  Brown  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  198;  McKee  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  342;  Anderson  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  G.  383;  Milan  Store  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912, 

10  R.  G.  399;  Larson  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  430; 
High  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  90;  Ford  v.  C.  <Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  418;  Cross  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  421;  Rogers  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  617;  Whiters 
et  al.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  340;  Hope  et  al.  v.  C. 
St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  47;  Wubker,  Jr.,  et  al.  u.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  326;  Keup  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  459;  Jenks  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  465;  Am.  Soc.  of  Equity  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914, 15  R.  G. 
489. 

Car  facilities. 

14.  Alleged  discrimination  in  distribution  of  freight  cars.  Colfax 
Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  86. 

Flag  station. 

15.  Question  of  necessity  for  flag  station  determined.  Gosz  v. 
C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  344;  Gilbertson  et  al.  v.  C.  ScN.W.  R. 
Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  495. 

Free  storage  period. 

16.  Necessity  for  lengthening  free  storage  period  for  freight  at  certain 
stations.  Albright  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  S:  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  763; 
Buckman  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.*  G.  405. 


Joint  use  of  station. 

17.  Railroad  advised  to  make  arrangements  for  joint  use  of  station 
of  another  railroad.  Streveler  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G. 
831. 


Milk  station. 

18.  Railroad  ordered  to  establish  a  milk  station  with  a  suitable 
platform  at  the  station  in  question.  Wilson  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co 
1913,  12  R.  G.  696. 


Station  Facilities. — Railroads 427 

Night  service. 

19.  Respondent  is  ordered  to  open  the  station  for  the  convenience  of 
the  public  not  less  than  twenty  minutes  prior  to  the  scheduled  arrival  of 
its  northbound  night  train.  Harris  et  al.  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C. 
512. 

Platform. 


20.  Construction  of  platform  ordered.  Corey  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  G.  191;  Blaser  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  275;  Thorson  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  363;  Bouk  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  8. 

Relocation  of  station. 

21 .  Station  facilities  are  a  part  of  the  service  that  the  railway  company 
is  legally  obliged  to  furnish.  If  such  facilities  are  not  reasonably  adequate, 
because  of  the  location  or  character  of  the  building,  the  company  may 
be  required  to  provide  a  depot  so  located  and  constructed  as  to  meet  the 
reasonable  requirements  of  the  public.  The  Commission  is  empowered, 
in  a  proper  case,  to  fix  the  point  of  location  of  a  depot  or  station.  Piillen 
V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  37;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  M.  St.  P.  c^ 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  719,  725. 

22.  Petition  for  relocation  of  station  dismissed.  City  of  Rhinelander 
V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  719;  Conklin  el  al.  v.  C.  B.  & 
Q.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  555;  Andrew  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  567. 

23.  Relocation  of  station  ordered.  Blackman  et  al.  v.  C.  ct  A^.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  50;  Von  Berg  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15 
R.  C.  311. 

Shelter.  ^ 

24.  Erection  of  shelter  for  passengers  ordered.  Blackman  et  al.  v. 
C.  iSc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  50;  Croty  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  C.  274;  City  of  Columbus  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C. 
576;  City  of  Menomonie  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  478; 
McMillan  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  556;  Bouk  et  al.  a 
CM.  &  Si.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  8. 

Spur  track. 

25.  Petition  for  construction  of  spur  track  dismissed.  Corey  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  191;  Antisdel  et  al.  u:  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  404. 

26.  Spur  track  ordered  constructed.  Blaser  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  275. 

Station  buildings. 

27.  Determination  of  adequacy  of  station  buildings  and  facilities  in 
general.  Pullen  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  27;  Loehr  v.  p.  M.  Sc  St. 
P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1906.  1  R.  C.  34;  Gmber  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1906,  1  R.  C.  53;  Pullen  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  60;  Guildner  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  102;  Perry  v.  A.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1906, 


428    Station  Facilities. — Railroads 

1  R.  C.  223;  Grossman  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  254;  Krueger 
V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  285;  Lienemann  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  88;  Bacon  v.  S.  M.  Sc  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  253;  Bowker  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  514;  Dennis  v.  K.  G.  B.  & 
W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  575;  Lorenz  &  Lorenz  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  G.  161;  Pischel  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  783; 
Brown  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  198;  Hall  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  23;  Strasburg  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  504;  Heaverin  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  526;  Hawes  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  565;  Vill.  of 
Abbotsford  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  619;  Vill.  of 
Curtiss  v.M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  655;  Nelson  et  al  v. 
N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  764;  City  of  Plymouth  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  al,  1911,  7  R.  G.  770;  Sergeant  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G. 
285;  Maurer  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  Gv  301;  Winchester 
et  al.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  305;  Village  of  Lohrville 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  699;  McKee  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  5.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  342;  Christenson  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  S: 
0.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  477;  Anderson  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  G.  3SS;  Milan  Store  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
.10  R.  G.  399;  Larson  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  430; 
Rollis  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  486;  Hemmis  et  al.  v.  G.  B.  S: 
W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  626;  High  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at., 

1912,  11  R.  G.  90;  Parkhill  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G. 
153;  Judd  Sc  Judd  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  175;  Farmers' 
Land  Sc  Cattle  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  318; 
Travelers'  Prof.  Assn.  of  America  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  363; 
Laursen  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  627;  Van 
Epps  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  54;  Hall  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  Ill;  Dahle  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1913,  12  R.  G.  369;  Travelers'  Prot.  Assn.  of  America  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1913,  12  R.  G.  439;  Anderton  et  al.  v.M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913, 

12  R;  G.  506;  Harms  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
552;  City  of  Clintonville  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  679;  Peterson 

M  al.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  694;  Ford  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  418;  Cross  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913, 

13  R.  G.  421 ;  Rogers  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  617;  Frederick 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  646;  McMillan  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1914,  16  R.  G.  679;  Comml.  Club  of'Menomonie  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  123;  Horicon  Adv.  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  144;  Village  of  Sun  Prairie  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 

14  R.  G.  332;  Whiteis  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
340;  Von  Berg  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  553;  Abrams 
Business  Mens  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  780;  Wilkins 
Sc  Wilkins  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  18;  Hope  et  al.  v.  C.  St. 
P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914, 15  R.  G.  47;  Wubker,  Jr.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  326;  Tennie  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  386; 
Keup  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  459;  Am.  Society 
of  Equity  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  489;  Ziesenis  et  al.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  585;  City  of  New  Richmond  v. 


Station  Facilities. — Railroads 429 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  615;  Frederick  v.  C.  St.  P.  M. 
&  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1915,  15  R.  G.  670. 

Adequacy  of  station  facilities — Stock  scales. 

28.  The  petition  does  not  involve  the  question  of  correct  weights  or  of 
faciUties  for  weighing  freight  within  the  meaning  of  sec.  10,  ch.  362,  laws 
of  1905,  as  amended.  On  the  other  hand  the  petitioner  has  in  view  the 
weighing  of  live  stock  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  the  buyer  and  seller 
in  ascertaining  the  price  to  be  paid  for  such  live  stock.  The  determination 
of  the  selling  price  of  live  stock  before  it  is  offered  for  shipment  to  the 
railway  company  is  purely  a  private  transaction  in  which  the  railway 
company  has  no  interest  whatsoever.  Petition  dismissed.  Iliff  v. 
G.  B.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  G.  102. 

29.  Installation  of  stock  scales  ordered.  Jenks  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  465. 

Stockyards. 

30.  Gonstruction  of  stockyards  ordered.  Homstad  et  al.  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  1;  Funk  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
8  R.  G.  582;  Hope  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  47. 

Switchstand. 

31.  Petition  for  relocation  of  switchboard  dismissed.  Bradley  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  136. 


■     Telephone  facilities. 

32.  The  telephone  is  an  indispensable  aid  in  the  conduct  of  the 
business  of  a  common  carrier  at  any  center  of  population  and  has  become 
a  necessity,  both  within  the  rule  of  the  common  law  as  well  as  by  legislative 
enactment.  Primarily  the  determination  of  the  extent  and  character  of 
the  service  rendered  by  a  common  carrier  is  left  to  the  management  of 
the  road.  It  is  only  when  there  is  a  disregard  of  its  obligations  to  the 
public  that  interference  on  the  part  of  the  state  is  justified.  It  may 
employ  any  telephone  or  agency  it  chooses  for  the  conduct  of  its  affairs 
with  its  employes  and  others  when  acting  in  its  private  capacity  and  may 
select  the  agencies  by  which  it  shall  serve  the  public,  but  it  cannot  select 
an  agency  exclusively  which  for  any  reason  is  incapable  of  fully  dis- 
charging its  duty  to  the  public.  People's  Tel.  Co.  v.  E.  R.  Co.  of  M.  et  al., 
1908,  2  R.  G.  822. 

33.  The  proper  course  to  follow,  if  telephone  rental  is  not  paid  within 
a  reasonable  time,  would  be  to  take  out  the  telephone.  Then  the  telephone 
company  may  install  a  pay  station  in  the  depot  as  provided  in  In  re  Free 
and  Reduced  Rate  Telephone  Service,  1908,  2  R.  G.  521,  543.  In  case  a  pay 
station  does  not  seem  to  answer  the  requirements  the  telephone  company 
may  then  apply  to  the  Gommission  for  an  order  requiring  the  railroad 
company  to  install  adequate  telephone  facilities.  In  re  Appl.  Farmers' 
Tel.  Co.  ofBeetown,  1914,  13  R.  G.  540,  576. 

34.  Under  all  the  circumstances  the  installation  of  a  second  business 
telephone  in  the  respondent's  station  at  Darlington  is  not  warranted. 
If  a  more  direct  connection  with  the  railway  depot  is  desired  by  the 


430 Station  Facilities. — Railroads 

Darlington  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  and  its  patrons,  a  pay  station  may  be 
installed  in  accordance  with  a  previous  ruling  of  the  Commission.  Bot- 
iomley  d  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  446. 

35.  Railroad  ordered  to  install  business  telephone  in  station.  Lauder 
V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  33;  McNaight  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  433;  Wubker,  Jr.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  326. 

Adequacy  of  station  f acili  lies — Toilet  facilities. 

36.  Railroad  ordered  to  install  modern  toilet  facilities  in  station. 
Blaine  v,  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  403. 

Umbrella. shed. 

37.  Construction  of  umbrella  shed  ordered.  Comml.  Club  of  Men- 
omonie  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <^  0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  123;  Monk  v.  C.St.  P. 
M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  635. 


Union  station. 

38.  Erection  of  union  station  ordered.  Storch  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R. 
Co.  et  al,  1911,  6  R.  C.  663;  McMillan  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  227. 

39.  Petition  for  erection  of  union  station  dismissed.  Teasdale  v. 
C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  679;  City  of  New  Richmond  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  cfc  O.R.  Co.  etal.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  556. 

STATION  GROUNDS. 

.See  Yard  Limits. 

STATIONS. 

See  Station  Facilities. 
Stopping  of  trains  at  stations,  see  Train  Service,  24-27. 

STATUTES. 

Application  of  ch.   362,   laws  of  1905,  to  street  railways,   see  Street 

Railways,  1. 
Sections  of  statutes  cofistrued,  see  Public  Utilities  Law;  Railroad 

Law;  Stock  and  Bond  Law;  Water  Power  Law. 

Construction,  rules  of. 

1.  It  is  a  well  established  rule  of  interpretation,  that  the  general 
system  of  legislation  upon  the  subject  matter  may  be  taken  into  view 
In  order  to  aid  the  construction  of  one  statute  relating  to  the  subject, 
and  that  it  is  proper  to  consider  other  statutes  in  pari  materia,  whether 
they  are  repealed  or  unrepealed.  {Harrington  v.  Smith,  1871,  28  Wis. 
66.)     Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  297. 


Stockholders  431 


STEAM. 

Distribution  of  consumption  of  steam  by  months  for  heating  purposes, 
see  Heating  Utilities,  2. 

STEAM  GENERATION  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  steam  generation  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit 
costs  for  electric  utiUties,  see  Accounting,  25. 

STOCK. 

See  Capital  Stock;  Live  Stock. 

STOCK  AND  BOND  LAW. 

SECTIONS  CONSTRUED. 

Sec.  1753-3,  ch.  576,  laws  of  1907,  Commission  not  given  alternative 
power  of  refusing  or  granting  authority  to  issue  stocks  and  bonds. 
In  re  Southern  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  47,  61. 

STOCK  AND  BONDS. 

Commission  without  discretionary  power. 

1.  The  Commission  may  not  impose  limitations  not  authorized  by 
the  statute  nor  determine  the  purposes,  terms  or  conditions  upon  which 
such  bonds  are  to  be  issued,  but  is  obliged  to  issue  its  certificate  author- 
izing the  issue  of  such  bonds  to  the  amount,  for  the  purposes,  and  upon  the 
terms  proposed  by  the  corporation,  if  they  are  legal.  In  re  Southern  Wis. 
Ry.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  47,  61. 

Granting  of  present  issue  of  bonds  not  confirmation  of  all  pr€5- 
vious  issues. 

2.  The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  if  this  Commission  authorizes 
the  present  issue  of  $300,000  of  serial  bonds  it  will  thereby  confirm  all 
previous  bond  issues  of  the  Southern  Wisconsin  Railway  Company  and 
its  predecessors.  This  is  true  neither  in  fact  nor  in  law.  The  legislature 
and  not  this  Commission  authorizes  the  present  issue  of  $300,000.  This 
Commission  is  charged  by  the  Stock  and  Bond  Law  with  the  sole  duty 
of  securing  certain  information  and  thereupon,  as  explained  above,  it  is 
compelled  to  issue  the  certificate,  unless  the  proposed  issue  is  illegal  or 
unauthorized.     In  re  Southern  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  47,  60. 

STOCK  SCALES. 

See  Station  Facilities,  28. 

STOCKHOLDERS. 

Different  rates  for  stockholders  and  nonstockholders  prohibited,  see 
Discrimination,  90. 


432  Stockyards 


STOCKYARDS. 

Construction  of  stockyards  ordered,  see  Station  Facilities,  30. 

STONE. 

Establishment  of  joint  rate  on  stone,  see  Rates — Railroad,  93. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  stone,  see  Rates — Railroad,  228,  244,  253, 
285. 

STONE  PAVING  BLOCKS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  stone  paving  blocks,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
286. 

STONE  TAILINGS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  stone  tailings,  see  Rates — Railroad,  287. 

STOPPING  IN  TRANSIT. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  172;  Transit  Privileges. 

STOPPING  OF  CARS. 

Stopping  of  interurban  cars  between  stations,  see  Interurban  Railways, 

15-16,  19. 
Stopping  of  street  and  interurban  cars,  see  Street  Railways,  46. 

STOPPING  OF  TRAINS. 

Stopping  of  interstate  trains,  see  Railroad  Commission,  58-60. 
Stopping  of  trains  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see  Railroads,  34. 
at  stations,  see  Train  Service,  24-27. 

STORAGE  CHARGE. 

Extension  of  free  storage  time  for  freight  under  certain  conditions,  see 
,  ;        Station  Facilities,  16;  Demurrage  Rules. 

STORAGE  FACILITIES. 

See  Station  Facilities;  Switch  Connections. 

STRAIGHT  METER  RATES. 

Discrimination  possible  under  straight  meter  rates,  see  Discrimination, 

25. 
Uniform   or  straight  meter  rates  generally   undesirable,   see  Rates — 

Electric,  50;  Rates — Water,  58. 


Street  Railways. — Control  and  regulation  in  general    433 

'    ■  ■  '  ■  —  ■    ,     ■ .  .  t 

STREET  LIGHTING  RATES. 

See  Rates — Electric,  91-95;  Rates — Gas,  20. 

STREET  RAILWAY  RATES. 

.  See  Rates — Street  Railway. 

STREET  RAILWAYS. 

See  also  Interurban  Railways. 

Application  for  authority  to  issue  bonds,  see  Stocks  and  Bonds,  1-2. 

Cost  of  service  of  street  railways,  determination  of  unit  costs,  see  Account- 
ing, 138-150. 

Depreciation,  rate  of  depreciation  of  street  railway  plants,  see  Deprecia- 
tion, 38-40. 

ACCOUNTING. 
See  Accounting,  138-150. 


I.     CONTROL  AND   REGULATION   IN   GENERAL. 
II.      ESTABLISHMENT.   CONSTRUCTION   AND   MAINTENANCE. 
III.      OPERATION. 

a.  Duty  to  operate.  c.   Requirements   as  to  service  and 

b.  Joint  use  of  tracks.  facilities. 


I.  CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  IN  GENERAL. 

Application  of  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905,  to  street  railways. 

1.  Our  conclusion  is  that  any  street  railway  company  that  is  not 
solely  engaged  in  the  transportation  of  passengers  within  the  limits  of 
cities  is  subject  to  ch.  362,  laws  of  1905,  both  as  to  its  urban  and  inter- 
urban business  and  that  the  reports  of  accidents  should  include  both 
classes  of  business.  Appl.  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  of  1905,  to  Street  Railways, 
1906,  1  R.  C.  178,  191. 

Duty  of  Commission  to  enforce  reasonably  adequate  service  and 
facilities. 

2.  The  duty  of  furnishing  reasonably  adequate  service  and  facilities 
for  the  convenience  of  the  public  is  imposed  upon  street  railway  corpora- 
tions by  law,  and  in  case  of  any  neglect  or  failure  in  the  performance  of 
such  duty,  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  Commission  to  enforce  the  same  by 
order  in  a  proper  proceeding  brought  for  that  purpose.  Lang  et  al.  v. 
City  of  La  Crosse  et  at.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  296. 

Power  of  cities  to  compel  the  common  use  of  tracks. 

3.  Every  city  has  authority  to  compel  the  common  use  of  tracks 
within  the  city  by  two  street  or  electric  railway  companies.  Wis.  Stat., 
sec.  940y-41.     Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  at.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  296. 


434    Street  Railways. — Control  and  regulation  in  general 

Power  of  cities  with  respect  to  use  of  public  places  by  public  service 
corporations. 

4.  In  all  legislation  pertaining  to  the  control  and  regulation  of  public 
service  corporations,  the  legislature  seenis  to  have  exercised  particular 
care  in  preserving  the  right  of  cities,  especially,  to  control  their  streets, 
highways  and  public  grounds  in  respect  to  the  use  thereof  by  such  corpora- 
tions. This  is  particularly  discernable  in  the  various  statutes  governing 
the  construction  and  operation  of  railroads.  Thus,  if  any  railroad  com- 
pany desires  to  construct  a  line  of  railroad  within  this  state,  or  to  extend 
any  existing  line,  or  to  construct  any  unconstructed  portion  of  its 
authorized  line  of  railroad,  it  must  first  obtain  authority  therefor  from 
the  Commission,  except  in  the  case  of  the  construction  or  extension  of 
electric  railroads  in  cities.  Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  1797-44  and  sec.  1797-53. 
Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  296. 

Power  of  Commission  to  order  restoration  of  service  upon  an 
abandoned  line  where  the  abandonment  was  made  without 
legal  sanction. 

5.  Power  is  vested  in  the  Commission  to  enforce,  in  any  proper  case, 
the  performance  of  the  public  functions  of  a  railway  company  when  the 
same  have  been  undertaken  by  the  company,  and  such  power  cannot  be 
defeated  by  an  illegal  abandonment  and  tearing  up  of  any  portion  of  the 
company's  line.  But  conceding  the  existence  of  the  power  in  the  Com- 
mission and  the  continuing  duty  of  the  company  to  exercise  its  franchises 
in  any  particular  case,  we  do  not  believe  that  such  power  and  duty, 
abstractedly  considered,  render  it  imperative  or  to  the  public  interest 
that  the  power  be  exercised.  While  the  failure  to  perform  such  positive 
duty,  enjoined  either  by  franchise  or  statutory  provision,  is  an  offense 
against  sovereignty,  such  failure  may  be  the  inevitable  result  of  unforseen 
conditions  or  conditions  arising  subsequent  to  the  assumption  of  the 
obligation  by  the  company.  The  power  should  never  be  exercised  in  a 
manner  that  might  threaten  any  existing  service  in  an  endeavor  to 
establish  a  new  or  restore  an  old  service.  Brown  v.  Janesville  Street  R. 
Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  757,  761;  Jones  v.  Wis.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
518,  522. 

Power  of  Commission  to  regulate  service  and  facilities. 

6.  The  Commission  may  regulate  the  service  of  all  electric  and  surface 
street  railway  companies,  whether  their  lines  are  within  or  without  the 
limits  of  municipalities,  or  both,  and  may  also  regulate  all  the  facilities 
of  such  corporations  devoted  to  the  public  service,  subject  only  to  the 
restrictions  and  Umitations  prescribexi  by  law.  Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La 
Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  298. 

Street  railways  subject  to  regulations  under  Railroad  Commission 
Law. 

7.  Sec.  1797-2  as  amended  by  ch.  582  of  the  laws  of  1907,  makes 
electric  railways  particularly  subject  to  the  Railroad  Commission  Law. 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  11-12. 


Street  Railways, — Establishm.,  construct,  and  mainten.     435 

Supervision    by    municipal    councils. 

8.  Under  the  Public  Utilities  Act,  ch.  499,  laws  of  1907,  every 
municipal  council  has  the  power  (1)  to  fix,  in  the  first  instance,  the  terms 
and  conditions  upon  which  any  public  utility  therein  embraced  may  be 
permitted  to  occupy  the  public  thoroughfares  and  public  property  of  the 
municipality;  (2)  to  require  extensions  and  additions  to  the  plants  of  any 
such  public  utility,  when  necessary  for  the  public  convenience,  and  to 
designate  the  location  and  nature  of  such  extensions  and  additions,  and 
prescribe  conditions  for  their  construction;  and  (3)  to  provide  a  penalty 
for  failure  to  comply  with-  any  such  requirements  of  the  municipality. 
Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  1797/n-87.  Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  292,  296-297. 

II.  ESTABLISHMENT,  CONSTRUCTION  AND  MAINTENANCE. 

Abandonment   of  track — Commission   without  power  to  author- 
ize or  prevent. 

9.  The  Commission  has  no  authority  to  authorize  the  construction 
or  extension  of  any  electric  railroad  within  a  city  or  prevent  the  abandon- 
ment or  change  of  location  of  any  part  of  such  a  road  constructed  under  a 
franchise  granted  by  the  common  council,  if  the  council's  consent  has  been 
obtained.  Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  at.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  298; 
Brown  v.  Janesville  Street  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  757,  761;  Jones  v.  Wis. 
Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  518,  522;  In  re  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  cfc 
P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  713,  714. 

■     Consent  of  city  council  necessary. 

10.  If  any  electric  railway  company  desires  to  discontinue  or  abandon 
any  part  of  its  road  on  a  public  street  or  highway  in  a  city,  thus  con- 
structed under  a  franchise  granted  by  the  city  council,  it  must  first 
obtain  the  consent  of  the  council  to  such  discontinuance  or  abandonment. 
Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  1863a,  subd.  1.  Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  297. 

Acquisition  of  franchises  or  privileges. 

11.  In  cities  the  common  councils  are  clothed  with  the  power  of 
granting  franchises  authorizing  the  construction  or  extension  of  electric 
railroads  within  their  corporate  limits,  and  may  determine  across  and 
on  what  streets,  alleys,  lanes  or  other  public  grounds  such  roads  may  be 
built.  Such  power  is  vested  exclusively  in  city  councils.  Lang  et  al.  v. 
City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  297. 

Crossings — Determination  as  to  manner  of  construction. 

12.  The  manner  of  construction  of  all  crossings  of  steam  railroads 
by  steam  railroads,  and  all  crossings  of  electric  or  street  surface  railroads 
by  like  railroads  or  by  steam  railroads,  is  determined  by  the  Commission, 
excepting  when  such  crossings  are  at  points  within  the  limits  of  incor- 
porated cities.  Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  1797-56.  Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse 
et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  296. 


436     Street  Railways. — Establlshm.,  construct,  and  mainten. 

Crossings — Electric  by  steam  road — Construction  of  grade  cross- 
ing. 

13.  Construction   of  grade  crossing  ordered.     In   re  Eastern   Wis. 
Ry.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  127. 

Protection  of  — Flagman. 


14.  Petition  for  flagman  at  crossing  dismissed.     City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  662. 

Separation  of  grades — ^Viaduct. 


15.  Construction  of  viaduct  ordered.  In  re  Mills  Street  Crossing  at 
La  Crosse,  1913,  13  R.  C.  145. 

Extension  of  lines. 

16.  If  the  construction  of  an  ordinary  railway  is  contemplated 
between  two  designated  terminal  stations,  the  route  to  be  occupied  may 
perhaps  be  designated  with  reasonable  certainty  in  its  charter,  but  a 
street  railway  system  intended  for  the  use  and  convenience  of  a  growing 
city  for  a  long  period  of  years  presents  a  different  problem.  Of  necessity, 
it  must  be  a  growth — a  development — and  the  direction  or  number  of 
the  lines  or  tracks  which  will  be  required  in  the  future  cannot  be  foretold 
with  any  precision.  New  streets  will  be  opened,  new  additions  to  the 
city  will  be  laid  out,  and  other  changes  not  now  anticipated  will  take 
place.  To  meet  these  contingencies,  the  city  council,  in  granting  a  charter 
for  a  comprehensive  street  railway  system,  must  either  in  sweeping  terms 
grant  the  right  to  occupy  all  streets  now  or  hereafter  opened,  or  it  must 
provide  for  the  extension  of  lines  from  time  to  time  as  the  need  therefor 
may  arise,  and  the  city  council  direct.  These  provisions  are  not  for  the 
granting  of  new  privileges  or  franchises,  but  for  the  reasonable  regulation 
and  control  of  the  company  in  the  use  of  the  franchise  originally  granted. 
To  adopt  the  other  plan,  and  grant  a  franchise  expressly  allowing  the 
company  to  enter  upon  and  occupy  any  or  all  streets,  without  any  power 
of  veto  or  regulation  by  the  city  council,  even  if  of  any  validity,  would 
be  a  most  unwise  and  impolitic  abandonment  of  an  important  right. 
{Thurston  v.  Huston,  1904,  123  Iowa,  157,  98  N.  W.  637,  639.)  City  of 
Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  715,  724. 

17.  In  the  absence  of  any  charter  provision  making  it  obligatory 
upon  a  street  railway  company  to  construct  and  operate  its  lines  on  certain 
streets  for  which  authority  was  granted  in  the  franchise,  the  company 
could  not  be  compelled  to  construct  and  operate  a  line  on  all  such  streets 
for  which  it  had  received  such  authority  so  to  do.  (San  Antonio  Street 
R.  Co.  V.  State,  1897,  90  Texas,  520,  526,  527,  528.)  City  of  Merrill  v. 
Merrill  Ry.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  418,  422-425;  City  of  Racine  v.  T.  M. 
E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  148,  149. 

Interlocking  plants — Rules  relating  to. 

18.  The  Commission,  under  the  authority  conferred  by  sec.  1797-96 
of  the  Railroad  Commission  Law,  has  decided  to  estabUsh  rules  for  the 
construction,  maintenance  and  operation  of  interlocking  plants  on  rail- 
roads and  street  railways.     The  rules  adopted  were  prepared  jointly. 


Street  Railways. — Operation 437 

with  a  view  to  securing  uniformity  in  the  states  affected,  by  the  engineers 
of  the  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commissions  of  Minnesota  and  Ilhnois, 
the  PubUc  Service  Commission  of  Indiana  and  the  Railroad  Commission 
of  Wisconsin.  The  rules  are  to  become  effective  December  1,  1913,  and 
the  managements  of  all  railroads  and  street  railways  are  ordered  to  conform 
to  them.     In  re  Interlocking  Plants,  1913,  12  R.  C.  718. 

III.  OPERATION. 

a.    DUTY  TO  OPERATE. 

Operation  at  pecuniary  loss. 

19.  A  railroad  company,  in  the  full  enjoyment  and  use  and  capacity 
to  use  its  franchises,  cannot  be  compelled  to  exercise  its  franchises  without 
reasonable  remuneration.  (Smythe  v.  Ames,  1898,  169  U.  S.  466;  Cov- 
ington &  Lexington  Turnpike  Road  Co.  v.  Sandford,  1896,  164  U.  S.  578; 
Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  1890,  134  U.  S.  418;  Lake 
S.&  M.  S.  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  1899, 173,  U.  S.  684;  Jack  v.  Williams,  1902, 113 
Fed.  823,  827;  affirmed  in  Jack  v.  Williams,  1906,  145  Fed.  281.)  Brown 
V.  Janesville  Street  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  757,  762. 

20.  It  seems  to  be  well  established  that  a  railway  company  may  not 
abandon  a  portion  of  its  line  merely  because  such  portion  is  unremun- 
erative,  but  must  operate  its  line  as  a  whole.  Nevertheless,  if  the  entire 
road  cannot  be  operated  except  at  a  loss,  when  economically  managed, 
nothing  can  prevent  the  company  from  abandoning  the  enterprise  and 
forfeiting  its  charter  and  franchise.  Brown  v.  Janesville  Street  R.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  C.  757,  764. 

b.   JOINT  USE   OF  TRACKS. 

Establishment  of  in  particular  cases. 

21.  Joint  use  of  tracks  ordered.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  v.  M.  N.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  268;  T.  M.  E.  R.  <fc  L.  Co.  v.  C  &  M.  El.  Ry.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  G.  299. 

Establishment  of — When  permissible. 

22.  Under  the  law  (ch.  62,  laws  of  1913)  the  proposed  joint  use  is 
permissible  unless  such  use  will  result  in  irreparable  injury  to  the  owner 
or  in  substantial  detriment  to  the  service,  always  provided,  of  course, 
that  such  use  is  required  by  public  convenience  and  necessity.  T.  M.  E. 
R.  &  L.  Co.  V.  Chi.  &  Mil.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  299,  306. 

Terms  and  conditions  of  joint  use — Basis  of  compensation. 

23.  Both  companies  consider  that  a  compensation  based  upon  a  rate 
per  car-mile  for  the  use  of  the  tracks  and  overhead  system  in  question 
would  be  satisfactory,  but  the  two  companies  fail  to  agree  upon  what 
that  rate  shall  be.  The  Commission,  however,  for  reasons  set  forth  in 
T.  M.  E.  R.  Sz  L.  Co.  v.  M.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  W.  R.  C.  R.  268,  281, 
adopts  the  ton-mileage  basis  used  in  that  case.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  v. 
C.  &  M.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  299,  307. 


438  Street  Railways. — Operation 

b.    JOINT    USE   OF   TRACKS.— Continued 

Terms  and  conditions  of  joint  use — Influence  of  competition. 

24.  Even  though  the  joint  use  of  tracks  by  competing  lines  may  have 
an  adverse  effect  upon  the  earnings  of  the  company  owning  the  tracks, 
the  Commission  must  reject  any  proposal  which  would  restrict  such  full 
and  free  use  of  the  tracks  as  the  needs  of  the  community  may  demand. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  v.  M.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  268,  285-286. 

Liability  for  accidents. 

25.  Public  policy  would  appear  to  forbid  the  relieving  of  a  railway 
company  of  its  natural  responsibilities  and  it  is  also  believed  that  the 
safety  of  operation  will  be  promoted  if  each  company  is  obliged  to  assume 
a  liability  in  proportion  to  its  responsibility  for  any  accidents  that  may 
occur.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  v.  M.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  268,  277; 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  V.  C.ScM.  El.  Ry.Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  299,  306. 

• Power. 

26.  Ordinarily  it  would  seem  that  the  company  owning  the  tracks 
should  be  permitted  to  furnish  the  power,  if  it  desires  to  do  so  and  is  in  a 
position  to  give  adequate  power  service.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  v.  C.  Sz 
M.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  299,  309. 

c.    REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. 

Adequacy  of  service — In  general, 

27.  In  arriving  at  the  correct  amount  of  service  to  be  given  by  a 
street  railway  company  on  any  line,  it  is  essential  to  measure  as  closely 
as  possible  the  amount  of  service  unconsciously  required  by  the  public 
at  all  times  of  the  day  and  under  varying  conditions.  Washington  Park 
Adv.  Assn.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  19,  20. 

28.  The  traffic  data  in  the  instant  case  show  clearly  that  there  is  a 
wide  variation  in.  the  loading  of  cars  during  the  non-rush  hours  and 
whatever  the  cause  of  this  condition  may  be,  while  it  exists  it  must  be 
given  consideration  in  determining  the  amount  of  service  necessary. 
In  re  Service  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1914,  13  R.  G.  178,  201. 

29.  Doorstep  street  car  service  for  all  is  not  practicable,  and  the 
criterion  must  be  the  reasonableness  of  the  distance  which  a  patron  is 
obliged  to  walk  in  order  to  obtain  service.  In  re  Chippewa  Yal.  Ry. 
Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  713,  717. 

Automatic  air  brakes. 

30:  All  double  truck  cars  hereafter  acquired  or  constructed  by  or  for 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Go.  shall  be  equipped  with  power  brakes  of  standard 
quality  and  efficiency.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  G.  662,  682-683. 

,    Carrying  of  freight. 

31.  The  carriage  of  freight  through  the  city  streets  by  respondent 
would  cast  an  additional  burden  on  the  fee,  for  which  abutting  owners 
would  be  entitled  to  compensation.     In  view  of  .the  reasonable  doubt 


Street  Railways. — Operation _^ 439 

as  to  the  existence  of  the  authority  contended  for  in  the  franchise  in 
question,  the  authority  cannot  be  inferred.  Wis.  Veterans''  Home  v. 
Waupaca  El.  Lt.  S:  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  656,  662. 

—     Cars. 

32.  Operation  of  additional  cars  ordered:  City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1907, 1  R.  C.  662;  Gillett  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  S:  L.  Co.  et  qL, 
1907,  1  R.  G.  689;  Elver  v.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  67;  City  of 
Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  430;  In  re  Service  of 
T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  G.  178. 

33.  Question  of  improved  cars  passed  upon.  In  re  Invest.  La  Crosse 
&  0.  St.  Ry.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  124;  Hiestand  et  al.  v.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co., 
1910,  6  R.  G.  162;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  89;  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913, 
13  R.  G.  178;  City  of  Racine  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1914,  14  R,  G.  148. 

34.  Every  car  in  the  regular  service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Go.  shall  be 
thoroughly  cleaned  at  least  once  each  day  and  no  car  shall  be  taken  out 
of  the  car  house  for  service  unless  it  has  previously  been  properly  cleaned. 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  662,  680. 


Comniutalion  tickets,  facilities  for  purchasing. 

35.  Gommutation  tickets,  good  for  transportation  between  Milwau- 
kee and  Wauwatosa  shall  be  kept  on  sale  and  sold  by  the  conductors 
operating  the  street  railway  lines  running  to  Wauwatosa,  such  sales, 
however,  not  being  required  to  be  made  east  of  the  single  fare  limits  on 
said  lines.     Gillett  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  689,  711. 

Double  track. 

36.  This  is  a  supplementary  order  relating  to  matters  decided  in  a 
proceeding  of  the  same  title  on  May  26,  1913  (12  R.  G.  49)  and 
October  6,  1913  (12  R.  G.  797),  and  in  Elver  v.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co. 
on  November  26,  1912  (11  R.  G.  67).  It  appears  that  the  lack  of  double 
track  facilities  has  prevented  the  respondent  from  complying  with  the 
requirements  of  the  Commission  governing  the  maintenance  of  a  five- 
minute  schedule  on  certain  portions  of  the  street  railway  system  in  the 
city  of  Madison  and  has  interfered  with  the  rendering  of  the  tripper 
service  ordered  by  the  Commission.  Respondent  ordered  to  make 
specified  extensions  of  its  double  track  facilities.  Rodolf  et  al.  v.  So.  Wi$. 
Ry.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  598. 

Fare  collectors. 

37.  Fare  collectors  to  be  stationed  at  important  points  to  assist  in 
loading  cars  during  rush  periods.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <k 
L.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  338;  In  re  Service  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  in  Mil- 
waukee, 1913,  13  R.  C.  178. 

Hand  brakes. 

38.  The  type  of  hand  brake  with  which  the  cars  of  the  company  are  at 
present  equipped  is  adequate  but  careful  maintenance  is  necessary. 
Elver  V.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  1,  71-72. 


440 Street  Railways. — Operation . 

c.   REQUIREMENTS   AS   TO   SERVICE    AND   FACILITIES.— Continued 

Adequacy  of  service — Minimum  headway. 

39.  In  determining  standards  for  adequate  street  railway  service  it 
is  necessary  to  specify  what  shall  be  the  minimum  headway  if  the  public 
is  to  be  properly  accommodated  at  periods  of  the  day  when  travel  is 
light.  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C. 
178,  202. 

Night  service. 

40.  Extension  of  night  service  ordered.  Rodolf  et  al.  v.  So.  Wis. 
Ry.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  49. 


Notice  of  change  in  schedule. 

41.  No  change  in  time  schedules  shall  be  made  except  on  giving 
five  days'  notice  and  sufficient  publicity  shall  be  given  said  notice  to 
afford  patrons  of  the  street  car  line  reasonable  means  of  information 
concerning  the  nature  of  such  changes  in  time,  before  the  same  become 
effective.     Gilleit  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  689,  711. 

— —     Routing  of  cars. 

42.  Routing  of  cars  prescribed  in  particular  cases.  Froehlich  et  al. 
V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  439;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E. 
R.  &  L.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  295;  1912,  8  R.  C.  535;  In  re  Service  of  T.  M. 
E.  R.  iSc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178;  Twenty-Second  Ward 
Advancement  Assn.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1914, 14  R.  G.  788;  1915,  15 
R.  C.  593. 


Schedule  making  a  managerial  detail  for  the  street  railway 

company. 

43.  Conditions  of  traffic  vary  from  year  to  year  and  with  the  seasons 
of  the  year,  and  to  meet  such  changes  schedules  must  be  flexible.  Should 
the  Commission  specify  the  headway  on  each  line,  it  would  be  necessary 
for  it  to  make  a  constant  study  of  changes  in  the  volume  of  traffic  and 
modify  its  orders  from  time  to  time.  In  short,  the  Commission  would, 
by  so  doing,  place  itself  at  the  service  of  the  Company,  filling  a  need 
which  should  rather  be  met  by  an  efficient  traffic  study  department. 
In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178, 
211-212. 

Schedules. 


44.  Establishment  of  schedules  ordered.  City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  662;  Gillett  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  at., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  689;  Hiestand  et  al.  v.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  162; 
Washington  Park  Adv.  Assn.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  19; 
Elver  V.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  1;  11  R.  C.  67;  Buergin  et  al.  v. 
So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  762;  12  R.  C.  167;  Rodolf  et  al.  v.  So. 
Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  49,  707;  Jones  v.  Wis.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  518;  15  R.  C.  174. 

Signs  on  cars. 


45.  It  is  believed  that  no  car  should  be  operated  without  having 
adequate  destination  signs  as  well  as  adequate  and  conspicuous  signs 


Streets 441 

plainly  showing  the  route  upon  which  the  car  is  operating.  City  of 
Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  338,  342;  In  re  Service 
T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1914,  13  R.  C.  178. 

Stopping  of  cars. 

46.  Stopping  of  cars  ordered  to  render  adequate  service.  C.  C. 
Pollworth  Co.  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  392;  Strache  v.  T.  M. 
E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  404;  City  of  Kenosha  v.  Kenosha  El.  Ry.  Co. 
et  al.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  508;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  et  al., 
1913,  13  R.  C.  89. 

Traffic  officers. 

47.  Traffic  officers  to  be  stationed  at  important  points  to  assist  in 
handling  traffic.  In  re  Service  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  178. 

Transfer  connections. 

48.  Cars  shall  wait  for  delayed  westbound  Wells  street  cars,  at 
least  three  minutes  under  ordinary  conditions  and  at  least  five  minutes  in 
inclement  weather,  so  as  to  obviate  unreasonable  delay  and  hardship  to 
passengers  desiring  to  make  the  transfer.  Gillett  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co. 
et  al,  1907,  1  R.  C.  689,  711. 

Utility  cars. 

49.  Utility  cars  should  be  operated  in  such  a  manner  as  to  interfere 
least  with  the  transportation  of  passengers  and  with  the  comfort  of 
people  living  near  lines  over  which  cars  are  being  operated.  City  of  Mil- 
waukee V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  662,  683. 

Elimination  of  noise  at  curves. 

50.  It  is  recommended  that  the  gauge  in  the  curve  be  broadened  and 
the  outer  rail  elevated,  but  if  it  is  found  that  greasing  alone  will  eliminate 
the  noise,  no  structural  change  will  be  necessary.  Respondent  is  ordered 
to  take  such  steps  as  may  be  essential  to  eliminate  the  objectionable  noises. 
Robh  et  al.  v.  Green  Bay  Traction  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  688. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — Street  Railway. 

VALUATION. 
See  Valuation. 

STREET  SPRINKLING  RATES. 

See  Rates— Water,  89-90. 

STREETS. 

Value  claimed  for  easements  over  private  right  of  way  which  subsequently 
became  public  streets,  see  Valuation,  97. 


442  Stub  Track 


STUB   TRACK. 

See  Switch  Connections. 

SUBSCRIBERS. 

Classification  of  telephone  subscribers  into  business  and  residence  sub- 
scribers, permissible,  see  Rates — ^Telephone,  4. 
Number  of  subscribers  on  line  limited,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  47. 

SUBWAYS. 

For  separation  of  grades  at  railroad  crossing,  see  Railroads,  53. 

SUGAR  BEETS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  sugar  beets,  see  Rates — Railroad,  289. 
Time  allowed  for  unloading,  free  time  allowance,   modification   under 
statute,  see  Demurrage  Rules,  2. 

SUGAR  BEET  PULP. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  sugar  beet  pulp,  see  Rates — Railroad,  289. 

SUMMER   COTTAGE  SERVICE. 

Extra  charges  for  temporary  telephone  service,  see  Rates — Telephone, 
70. 

SUNDAY  EXCURSION  TRAIN. 

See  Train  Service,  17,  29. 

SUNDAY  TRAINS. 

See  Train  Service,  28-30. 

SUPERINTENDENCE. 

Wages  of  management  and  superintendence  as  element  in  profits,  see 

Return,  43-46. 
Cost  of  superintendence  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities, 

see  Valuation,  112. 

SURPLUS. 

Rate  of  return  on  investments  in  a  public  or  quasi-public  enterprise 
desirability  of  margin  between  gross  revenues  and  the  aggregate  of 
operating  expenses  and  fixed  charges,  see  Return,  8. 


Switch  Connections. — Character  of 443 

Maintenance  of  adequate  surplus. 

1.  It  is  important  to  the  public  that  the  railroad  company  be  enabled 
at  all  times  to  maintain  an  adequate  surplus  in  reserve,  for  out  of  this 
must  usually  come  the  cost  of  improving  the  service,  increasing  the 
efficiency  of  the  road,  and  meeting  emergencies.  (M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Commission,  1908,  136  Wis.  146,  167,  168.)  Hawes 
V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  565,  568. 

SWITCH  CONNECTIONS. 


I.  CHARACTER  OF  SWITCH   CONNECTIONS. 

II.  ESTABLISHMENT   OF  SWITCH   CONNECTIONS. 

III.  RIGHT   OF  SHIPPER  TO   SWITCH   CONNECTIONS. 

IV.  RIGHT   OF  SHIPPER  TO   SWITCHING  SERVICE. 


I.  CHARACTER  OF  SWITCH  CONNECTIONS. 

Definition  of  "spur  track." 

1.  "Spur  track"  or  "spur"  has  a  definite  meaning  in  the  art  of  rail- 
roading. According  to  Camp,  an  authority  on  such  terms,  "by  the 
term  'Spur'  or  'Stub  track'  is  usually  meant  a  sidetrack  which  is  con- 
nected to  another  track  with  only  one  switch."  According  to  none  of  the 
authorities  on  railroad  nomenclature  is  a  "spur  track"  or  "sidetrack" 
necessarily  connected  with  a  main  line.  Eden  Independent  Lime  & 
Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  797-798. 

Distinction  between  industry  track  and  team  track. 

2.  The  industry  track  is  one  built  for  the  special  benefit  of  some 
particular  industry  or  industries  and  on  which  cars  are  handled  for  the 
particular  industries  for  which  the  track  was  built.  Sometimes  such 
tracks  are  built  by  the  railway  company  entirely,  sometimes  by  the 
shipper,  and  sometimes  both  take  a  hand  and  share  the  expense.  No 
general  rule  seems  to  have  been  followed.  The  parties  probably  made 
the  best  trades  they  could.  The  team  tracks,  on  the  contrary,  are  put 
in  for  the  benefit  of  the  general  public  and  are  invariably  put  in  at  the 
expense  of  the  carrier.  On  such  a  track  any  person  desiring  to  do  so 
may  load  and  unload  freight.  Clark  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  C.  590,  591-592. 

Industrial  tracks  constructed  and  operated  under  contracts. 

3.  Many,  if  not  most,  industrial  tracks  have  been  laid  down  and  are 
operated  under  express  contracts  entered  into  by  the  owners  of  industries 
with  the  railway  companies,  and  the  character  of  such  tracks  and  the 
purposes  to  which  they  may  be  devoted  are  referable  to  the  terms  of  such 
contracts.  (Maginnis  v.  Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.,  1901,  112  Wis.  385.) 
Hickerson  Roller  Mill  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  395,  401;  Eden 
Independent  Lime  cfc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788, 
794. 


444  Switch  Connections. — Character  of 

Private  industrial  tracks. 

4.  In  the  original  order  of  the  Commission  (4  R.  C.  233  as 
modified  in  4  R.  C.  788  and  5  R.  G.  110),  subsequently  vacated  by 
the  supreme  court  (144  Wis.  523),  the  Commission  acted  on  the 
basis  that  private  tracks  laid  upon  the  premises  of  a  private  company 
for  the  convenient  operation  of  its  industries  do  not  form  a  part  of  the 
railway  company's  system.  If  we  are  in  error  in  this  and  the  Commission 
has  authority  to  thus  extend  private  tracks  constructed  upon  the  premises 
of  industries  for  the  purpose  of  conveniently  handling  the  in  and  out 
traffic  of  such  industries,  it  is  important  that  the  matter  be  not  left  in 
doubt.  From  the  language  of  the  court  it  would  seem  that  such  authority 
exists,  but  as  we  are  unable  to  find  that  the  attention  of  the  court  was 
directed  to  the  question  here  suggested,  we  hesitate  to  accept  the  con- 
clusions reached  as  final,  and  trust,  if  the  matter  should  again  reach  the 
supreme  court  for  decision,  that  the  question  may  be  positively  deter- 
mined. Eden  Independent  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  140,  147. 

Spur  track  constructed  as  integral  part  of  rai)road  system. 

5.  Section  1831a  of  the  Wisconsin  Statutes  of  1898  authorizes 
railway  companies  to  construct  spur  tracks  to  industries  and  to  exercise 
the  power  of  eminent  domain  when  necessary  to  acquire  the  right  of  way 
for  such  tracks.  A  track  constructed  under  the  provisions  of  this  statute 
becomes  an  integral  part  of  the  railway  system  and  must  be  operated  for 
the  benefit  of  the  public  or  any  individual  requiring  the  services  of  the  same, 
although  constructed  primarily  to  serve  a  single  industry.  (C.  cfc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.  V.  Morehouse,  1901, 112  Wis.  1.)  Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.  Up  ham  Manufac- 
turing Co.  et  at.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  739;  Hickerson  Rotter  Mitt  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  395,  400;  Eden  Independent  Linie  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  793. 

6.  When  there  is  no  private  contractual  limitation  upon  the  use  of 
the  spur  track  by  the  railway  company  constructing  it,  the  same  becomes 
a  part  of  its  railway  system  and  must  be  maintained  and  operated  accord- 
ingly for  the  benefit  of  any  and  all  persons  who  may  require  the  services 
thereof.  Hickerson  Rotter  Mitt  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  395,  401 ; 
Eden  Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &.  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
788,  794. 

Spur  track  constructed  by  owner  of  industry — Compulsory  con- 
nection with  railroad. 

7.  Section  1802  of  the  Wisconsin  Statutes  of  1898  enables  the  owner 
of  any  industry  situated  within  the  yard  limits  of  any  station  or  terminus 
to  construct  his  own  track  from  such  industry  to  the  railroad  and  connect 
therewith  within  such  limits.  The  maintenance  and  operation  of  the 
track,  for  the  benefit  of  the  owner,  is  imposed  upon  the  railway  company, 
but  the  cost  of  such  maintenance  and  operation  must  be  borne  by  the 
owner.  {Barttett  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1897,  96  Wis.  335.)  Hickerson 
Rotter  Mitt  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  395,  400-401;  Eden  Inde- 
pendent Lime  <Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  794. 


Switch  Connections. — Establishment  of  445 


II.  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  SWITCH  CONNECTIONS. 

Spur   track,   construction  of — Compulsory  connection  with  rail- 
road. 

8.  Prior  to  the  enactment  of  sec.  1797-1 1/n  of  the  Wisconsin  Statutes, 
only  owners  of  industries,  located  within  the  yard  limits  of  any  station, 
could  construct  lines  leading  from  such  industries  to  the  tracks  of  the 
railway  and  connect  them  theriewith  within  such  limits.  (Sec.  1802, 
Wis.  Stats,  of  1898.)  Eden  Independent  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  796. 

9.  The  safety  of  operation  of  the  road  was  the  reason  that  compulsory 
switch  connections  with  tracks,  at  the  instance  of  private  parties  (Wis. 
Stats.,  1898,  sec.  1802),  were  confined  to  the  yard  limits  of  stations, 
because  in  such  places  there  are  usually  sidetracks  with  which  such 
connections  may  be  made  without  cutting  into  the  main  line,  and  further- 
more the  switches  are  at  such  points  within  the  observation  of  the  station 
employes,  and  their  condition  is  at  all  times  subject  to  inspection,  and, 
in  the  case  of  neglect  by  train  crews  to  properly  throw  them  after  use,  or, 
in  case  of  being  tampered  with  by  others,  the  matter  may  be  remedied 
and  accidents  avoided.  Eden  Independent  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  796. 

Connection  of  proposed  spur  with  existing  spur  track. 

10.  The  contention  that  no  order  can  be  made  requiring  the  railway 
company  to  connect  the  proposed  spur  with  any  track  other  than  the  main 
line,  or  to  extend  the  existing  spur,  is  based  upon  the  theory  that  the 
statute  (Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  1 797-1  Im)  contemplates  only  branches  connected 
with  the  main  line.  If  this  contention  should  prevail,  the  result  would 
be  to  defeat,  in  a  great  measure,  the  purpose  of  the  act  and  to  create  evils 
greater  than  those  the  statute  was  designed  to  remedy.  Eden  Independent 
Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  u.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  795,  797-798. 


Division  of  cost  among  parties. 

11.  Subdivision  2  of  sec.  1797-1 1/n  of  the  Wisconsin  Statutes  requires 
the  party  or  parties  primarily  to  be  served  by  a  proposed  spur  track  to 
pay  for  the  right  of  way  and  construction,  and  specifies  the  conditions 
and  manner  of  payment.  Eden  Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  788,  795-796. 

12.  Subdivision  3  of  sec.  1797-1  Im  of  the  Wisconsin  Statutes  ex- 
pressly provides  that  when  an  industrial  spur  is  to  be  connected  with  a 
spur  from  the  main  line,  constructed  under  the  provisions  of  the  statute 
here  involved,  contribution  must  be  made  by  the  party  proposing  to  make 
the  connection  to  the  party  who  paid  for  the  primary  spur  to  the  main 
line.  Eden  Independent  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  C.  788,  798. 

Over  city  streets  and  other  public  places — Power  of  cities  to 

prescribe  terms. 

13.  Spur  tracks  may  not  be  constructed  across  or  upon  any  street, 
lane  or  alley  within  the  corporate  limits  of  any  city  without  the  consent 


446 Switch  Connections. — Establishment  of 

of  the  proper  authorities  of  such  city,  who  may  prescribe  terms  and  con- 
ditions for  the  construction  of  such  tracks.  (Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  1802  and 
sec.  1831a.)     Lang  et  at.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  292,  296. 

Spur  track,  construction  of — Statutory  requirements  relating  to. 

14.  Section  1802,  Statutes  of  1898,  as  amended  by  ch.  386,  laws  of 
1905,  makes  it  obligatory  for  railway  companies  to  make  connections 
within  terminal  or  yard  limits.  The  statute  is  mandatory  in  its  terms, 
and  if  the  point  in  question  is  within  yard  limits,  it  is  the  absolute  duty 
of  the  railway  company  to  grant  the  petitioner's  request  regardless  of  the 
physical  conditions.  If  it  is  not,  then  the  railway  company  may  refuse 
to  make  the  connection  whether  hardship  ensues  or  not,  and  whether 
its  motives  are  good  or  bad.  It  can  stand  on  its  legal  rights  without 
apology  and  without  explanation.  Osceola  Mill  &  Elev.  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  166,  168. 

15.  The  requirements  of  the  statute  governing  the  establishment  of 
a  spur  track  are  (1)  that  the  spur  track  in  question  must  not  exceed  two 
miles  in  length;  (2)  that  it  must  not  be  unusually  unsafe  and  dangerous; 
(3)  that  it  must  be  "practically  indispensable"  to  the  operation  of  the 
industry  or  enterprise  in  interest.  Jefferson  Ice  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  431,  443-448;  Hurst  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  283,  286; 
Eden  Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
788,  795-796;  Dwight  Equity  Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  501,  503. 

16.  Under  ch.  481,  laws  of  1909,  and  ch.  193,  laws  of  1911,  it  is  pro- 
vided that  "Every  railroad  shall  acquire  the  necessary  rights  of  way  for, 
and  shall  construct,  connect,  maintain  and  operate  a  reasonably  adequate 
and  suitable  spur  track  whenever  such  spur  track  does  not  necessarily 
exceed  three  miles  in  length,  is  practically  indispensable  to  the  success- 
ful operation  of  any  existing  or  proposed  mill,  elevator,  storehouse, 
warehouse,  dock,  wharf,  pier,  manufacturing  establishment,  lumberyard, 
coal  dock,  or  other  industry  or  enterprise,  and  its  construction  and  opera- 
tion is  not  unusually  unsafe  and  dangerous,  and  is  not  unreasonably 
harmful  to  public  interest."  Theresa  Mill  &  Supply  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  73,  75;  Judd  &  Judd  et  al.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  175,  179;  Doyle  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914,  13  R.  C.  620,  622. 

17.  Under  the  requirements  of  the  statute  the  Commission  cannot 
characterize  a  spur  track  as  indispensable  on  the  strength  of  prospects  of 
future  business — purely  speculative  in  character,  nor  can  costs  to  the 
petitioner  alone  determine  indispensableness.  It  would  be  against  public 
policy  to  allow  any  industry  or  enterprise  to  locate  at  any  place  whatsoever, 
without  using  any  foresight  as  to  its  future  necessities,  and  then  permit 
such  industry  or  enterprise  to  show  that  a  spur  track  is  indispensable 
to  its  successful  conduct,  when  its  own  lack  of  foresight  or  ordinary  good 
judgment  creates 'the  necessity  or  desirability  of  a  spur  track.  Necessity 
created  through  error  or  bad  judgment,  costlj'^  and  distressing  though  it  be, 
is  not  the  kind  of  necessity  contemplated  in  the  law.  Hurst  v.  N.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  283,  287. 


Switch  Connections. — Right  of  shipper  to  447 

18.  In  deciding  whether  a  proposed  spur  track  is  practically  indis- 
pensable to  the  successful  operation  of  a  public  utility  the  mere  physical 
possibility  of  operating  the  plant  without  the  use  of  the  spur  cannot  be 
taken  as  conclusive  of  the  question  but  consideration  must  be  given  to 
the  needs  of  the  plant  when  operated  with  efTicient  and  economical 
equipment  which  it  is  the  duty  of  the  public  utility  under  the  law  (Berend 
V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co. J  1909,  4  R.  G.  155)  to  install  and  maintain.  Madison  G. 
&  El.  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  409,  415-416. 

19.  The  contention  of  the  respondent  that  having  once  provided 
the  petitioner  with  track  facilities  adequate  to  the  then  existing  needs  of 
the  plant  the  respondent  cannot  be  required  either  to  change  the  existing 
tracks  or  to  install  additional  tracks  to  meet  new  requirements  of  the 
industry,  is  not  tenable  for  such  a  construction  of  the  statute  would 
defeat  the  purpose  of  the  statute.  Madison  G.  cfc  El.  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  409,  413-414. 

III.  RIGHT  OF  SHIPPER  TO  SWITCH  CONNECTIONS. 

Spur  track — Construction  of. 

20.  Railroad  ordered  to  construct  spur  track.  Osceola  Mill  <Sc  Elev. 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  204;  Grossman  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  254;  Osceola  Mill  &  Elev.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  608;  Northern  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.  N.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  37;  Homstad  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C. 
66;  Brink  v.  C.  B.  cfc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  79;  Jefferson  Ice  Co.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  431;  Eden  Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  233;  Clear  Ice  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  C.  426;  Eden  Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1910,  4  R.  C.  788;  5  R.  C.  110;  727;  Dwight  Equity  Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  501;  Phelps  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1911,  6  R.  C.  556;  Vaudreuil  Realty  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  S:  0.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  661;  Eden  Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  140;  Oconto  Brewing  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
8  R.  C.  67;  Thome  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  156;  Savage  et  at. 
V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  442;  Theresa  Mill  cfc  Supply  Co. 
V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  73;  Madison  G.  Sc  El.  Co.  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  409;  Weeks  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  114. 

21.  Petition  for  construction  of  spur  track  dismissed.  Guildner  v. 
C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  102;  Osceola  Mill  Sc  Elev.  Co.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  166;  Corey  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  191;  Thomas  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  C.  716;  Hurst  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  283;  Moe  Sc  Millerman 
V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  117;  Knutsen  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  615;  Doyle  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
13  R.  C.  620;  Osceola  Mill  <fc  Elev.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  416. 


448  Switch  Connections. — Right  of  shipper  to  switch,  serv. 

Spur  track — Protection  of. 

22.  The  installation  of  the  signal  proposed  by  respondent  is  not 
justified  in  the  present  case.  While  automatic  protection  of  switches  is 
desirable  as  a  general  practice,  to  be  effective,  such  installations  should  be 
uniform,  in  order  that  enginemen  may  be  assisted  in  making  quick 
decisions.  Middleton  Sand  &  Concrete  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  306. 

Restoration  of. 


23.  Railroad  ordered  to  restore  spur  track.  Smith  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  356;  Jacobson  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  295. 

"Spotting"  of  cars  on  public  streets. 

24.  Question  of  spotting  of  freight  cars  on  public  street  passed  upon. 
Farmers'  Store  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  42;  Madison 
G.  Sc  El.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  409. 

Track  connection. 

25.  Track  connection  ordered  by  Gommission.  West  Salem  Canning 
Co.  et  al.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  254;  Gratiot  et  al.  v. 
I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  421. 

26.  Petition  for  track  connection  dismissed.  National  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  509. 

IV.  RIGHT  OF  SHIPPER  TO  SWITGHING  SERVIGE. 

Duty  of  common  carriers  to  interchange  traffic. 

27.  Under  the  provisions  of  sec.  1797-11  (eh.  362,  laws  of  1905)  as 
amended,  it  is  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier  to  receive  a  carload  shipment 
from  a  competing  carrier  and  switch  the  same  to  a  convenient  point  on 
the  team  track  of  the  receiving  carrier  for  a  reasonable  compensation,  at 
least  in  the  absence  of  any  showing  that  such  action  would  materially 
interfere  with  the  business  of  the  receiving  carrier.  Clark  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  590;  733;  Teasdale  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1912,  9  R.  G.  66. 

Use  of  belt  line  as  industrial  or  team  track. 

28.  The  track  located  on  River  street  in  front  of  the  warehouse  or 
coal  shed  of  the  petitioners,  and  which  has  been  used  by  them  for  the 
unloading  of  freight,  does  not  appear  to  be  either  a  team  track  or  a  private 
sidetrack,  but  rather  a  sort  of  a  belt  line  over  which  such  tracks  are 
served.  In  view  of  these  and  other  facts  and  of  the  conditions  generally 
which  apply  in  this  case,  it  appears  to  us  that  under  the  laws  of  this  state 
the  respondent  cannot  be  required  to  permanently  permit  said  belt  line 
to  be  used  as  an  ordinary  team  or  sidetrack.  Plowright  Sc  Menzies  v. 
C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  553,  572. 

SWITCHING  CHARGES. 

See  Ratfs — Railroad;  Rates — ^Telephone;  Terminal  Gharges. 


Taxation  449 


SWITCHING  SERVICE. 

See  Railroads;  Switch  Connections;  Telephone  Utilities; 

Transportation. 

TANBARK. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  tanbark,  see  Rates-;-Railroad,  290. 

TANK  HEATERS. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates^ — Railroad, 
200. 

TAP  LINE. 

Allowance  or  division  of  joint  rate  to  tap  line,  an  unjust  discrimination, 
see  Rates — Railroad,  70. 

TAPPING  OF  MAINS. 

Charge  for  tapping  water  mains,  see  Rates — Water,  91. 

TARIFFS. 

See  Schedules  or  Tariffs. 
Legality  of  ante-dated  tariff,  see  Rates — Railroad,  L 

TAXABLE  VALUE. 

Taxable  value  as  matter  considered  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see 
Valuation,  123. 

TAXATION. 

Franchise  values,  appraisal  for  taxation  and  for  rate-making  purposes, 

see  Franchises,  10. 
Taxable  property,  as  fund  available  for  just  compensation  upon  municipal 

acquisition  of  public  utility,  see  Eminent  Domain,  1. 

Relation  between  the  assessed  valuation  and  the  net  earnings  of 
public   utilities. 

1.  Public  utilities,  like  other  property,  are  supposed  to  be  taxed  upon 
their  earning  or  market  value.  This  assessment  is  made  annually.  The 
market  value  depends  very  largely  upon  the  net  earnings  of  an  enterprise, 
and  the  net  earnings,  in  turn,  to  a  considerable  extent  rest  upon  the  rates 
charged  per  unit  for  the  services  rendered.  When  the  rates  are  increased, 
there  is  apt  to  be  increase  in  the  net  earnings  and  in  the  market  or  assessed 
valuation.  When  the  rates  are  reduced,  the  net  earnings,  together  with 
the  values  named,  are  also  apt  to  be  reduced.    There  is  thus  a  rather 

15 


450  Taxation 


close  relation  between  the  assessed  valuation  and  the  rates.  If  utilities 
are  permitted  to  charge  high  rates  and  thereby  increase  their  net  earnings 
or  market  value,  it  would  seem  to  be  only  fair  that  they  should  also  be 
required  to  pay  taxes  on  the  higher  valuation.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
rates  and  the  net  earnings  and  market  value  are  reduced,  corresponding 
reductions  should  also  be  made  in  the  assessed  valuation.  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  takes  place.  The  assessments  for  taxation  are  changing  with 
the  net  earnings  or  with  market  values.  This  practice  would  seem  to  be 
fair  and  to  be  in  line  with  public  policy.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  728. 

TAXES. 

Apportionment  of  taxes  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs  for  electric 

utilities,  see  Accounting,  27. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  43. 
for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  66. 
for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  72. 
for  railroads,  see  Accounting,  129. 
for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  165. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  179. 
As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 

Electric,  37-40. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Rates — Gas,  8. 
for  railroads,  see  Rates — Railroad,  130. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Rates — Water*  35,  48. 
Elimination  of  taxes  as  element  in  making  rates  for  municipal  utilities, 

discrimination  in  favor  of  consumers    as  against   taxpayers,    see 

Discrimination,  45. 

TEAM  TRACKS. 

See  Switch  Connections. 

TELEGRAPH  COMPANIES. 

OPERATION. 

REQUIREMENTS   AS  TO   SERVICE   AND  FACILITIES. 

Adequacy  of  service. 

1.  Investigation  was  prompted  by  petitions  and  complaints  relating  to 
telegraphic  service.  The  enforcement  of  ch.  575,  laws  of  1907,  resulted  in 
the  closing  of  a  large  number  of  telegraph  stations,  due,  in  part  at  least, 
to  the  re-distribution  of  the  railway  telegraph  operators,  only  a  limited 
number  of  which  were  available.  The  railway  companies  now  employ 
many  more  operators  and  pay  a  larger  total  of  operators'  salaries.  Gh. 
575  has  also  accelerated  the  substitution  of  the  telephone  for  the  telegraph 
in  train  operation.  The  contracts  between  the  railway  and  telegraph 
companies  make  the  latter  responsible  for  commercial  messages.  A 
general  order  cannot  well  be  made  in  that  inadequacy  of  service  is  a 
matter' of  fact  and  law  which  must  be  determined  in  each  case  by  itself. 
In  re  Invest,  of  Telegraph  Service,  1908,  2  R.  C.  263. 


Telephone  Utilities  451 


TELEGRAPH  SERVICE. 

Telegraph  companies  rather  than  railroad  companies  are  responsible  for 
the  telegraph  service  in  Wisconsin,  see  Railroads,  95. 

TELEPHONE  DIRECTORIES. 

Advertisements  in  telephone  directories,  right  of  telephone  company  to 
insert  advertisements  in  directories  as  collateral  undertaking  not 
affecting  prejudicially  the  reasonable  performance  of  its  duties 
to  the  public,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  1. 

Charge  for  extra  listing  in  telephone  directory,  see  Rates — Telephone, 
20. 

TELEPHONE  EXCHANGE. 

Establishment  of  checking  station,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  5. 
Relocation  of  telephone  exchange  a  matter  to  be  determined  by  the 

utility,  so  long  as  no  unreasonable  expenditures  will  result  from 

the  change,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  29. 

TELEPHONE  FACILITIES. 

Duty  of  railroad  company  as  to  telephone  facilities  in  stations,  see  Rail- 
roads, 97. 

TELEPHONE  RATES. 

See  Rates — Telephone. 

TELEPHONE  UTILITIES. 

Contracts  for  telephone  service  and  facilities,  see  Contracts,  2,  4-7. 
Cost  of  service  of  telephone  utilities,  determination  of  unit  costs,  see 

Accounting,  151-173. 
Depreciation,  rate  of  depreciation  of  telephone  plant,  see  Depreciation, 

41-44. 
Discrimination  as  between  telephone  subscribers,  see  Discrimination, 

86-104.  . 
Exchange  radius,  determination  of  exchange  radius  for  telephone  utility, 

see  Rates — Telephone,  16. 
Franchise,  municipality  has  no  power  to  grant  franchise  to  telephone 

company,  see  Franchises,  15. 
Franchise  value,  does  not  attach  to  the  business  of  telephone  companies 

in  Wisconsin,  see  Valuation,  36. 
Installation    of   telephone   in    railroad    station,    see   Railroads,    97-98; 

Station  Facilities,  32-35. 
Rebates  or  concessions,  allowance  to  subscriber  of  telephone  utility  on 

account  of  ownership  of  instrument  of  facility,  rate  concession 

prohibited,  see  Rebates  or  Concessions,  2-3, 
Rules  and  regulations  as  to  payment  of  rates,  see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

7-29. 
Schedules  of  rates  and  charges,  see  Schedules  for  Utilities,  2-8. 


452 Telephone  Utilities. — Accounting 

ACCOUNTING. 
See  Accounting,  3-4,  151-173. 


I.      CONTROL  AND   REGULATION   IN   GENERAL. 
II.      ESTABLISHMENT,   CONSTRUCTION   AND   MAINTENANCE. 

a.  Checking  station.  e.  Pa>  station.s. 

b.  Construction  of  lines.  f.  Telephone  exchanges. 

c.  Extension  of  lines.  g.  Through  lines. 

d.  Franchises  or  privileges. 

III.  OPERATION. 

a.  Bridged  telephone  service.      d.    Requirements   as   to   service   and 

b.  Physical  connection.  facilities. 

c.  Private  branch  exchange.        e.   Standards  of  service. 

IV.  RIGHT  OF  WAY   AND   OTHER   INTEREST   IN   LAND. 
V.     TELEPHONE   COMPANIES. 


I.  CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  IN  GENERAL. 

Collateral  undertaking  when  not  affecting  prejudicially  the  reason- 
able performance  of  its  duties  to  the  public. 

1.  Any  undertaking  or  practice  collateral  to  the  public  calling  of  a 
public  utility,  which  does  not  in  itself  impair  the  ability  of  the  utility  to 
fully  perform  its  public  functions  in  every  respect,  is  not  within  the  con- 
templation of  the  regulative  powers  of  the  Commission.  It  is  only  when 
the  public  is  prejudiced  in  the  matter  of  rates,  services  or  facilities  by  any 
such  act,  practice  or  collateral  undertaking  of  a  public  utility  that  the 
Commission  may  step  in  and  exercise  its  supervisory  power  to  the  end 
that  such  prejudice  be  removed.  Fond  du  Lac  Business  Men's  Assn.  et  al. 
V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  340,  349. 

Ordinance  requiring  removal  of  telephone  poles  from  street. 

2.  Under  the  ordinance  the  complainant  would  be  obliged  either  to 
violate  its  duty  to  the  public  by  interrupting  the  service  or  submit  to  a 
cumulative  penalty  during  the  period  required  for  performing  the  work 
beyond  the  time  limit  allowed.  Held:  That  such  legislation  is  not  a 
proper  exercise  of  the  police  power  delegated  to  a  municipality  and  such 
ordinance  is  null  and  void.     Wis.  Tel.  Co.  v.  City  of  Green  Bay,  1908. 

3  R.  C.  147,  162-163. 

Power  of  municipality  to  regulate  location  of  poles  within  the 
streets  or  other  public  places. 

3.  All  legislative  grants  to  private  corporations  to  occupy  streets 
with  electrical  appliances  are  impliedly,  if  not  expressly,  subject  to  the 
police  power  of  the  municipality,  both  to  dictate  and  to  change  the 
location  of  such  plants.     {Monongahela  v.  Monongahela  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1892, 

4  Am.  El.  Cas.  53.)     Wis.  Tel.  Co.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse,  1911,  7  R.  C.  435, 
445. 


Telephone  Utilities. — Establishm.,  consfr.  and  mainlen.    453 

4.  A  city  may  not  enforce  an  ordinance  peremptorily  directing  a 
telephone  company  to  relocate  its  poles  in  an  impracticable  manner, 
after  the  poles  have  been  located  and  allowed,  when  it  is  neither  averred 
nor  shown  that  the  existing  location  incommodes  the  public,  nor  that 
there  was  any  good  reason  for  the  removal  of  the  poles.  {Hannibal  v. 
Mo.  <Sc  K.  Tel  Co.,  1888,  31  Mo.  App.  23.)  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  v.  City  of  La 
Crosse,  1911,  7  R.  G.  435,  446. 

II.  ESTABLISHMENT,  CONSTRUCTION  AND  MAINTENANCE. 

a.    CHECKING    STATION. 

EslabJishmcnt  of. 

5.  Petition  for  establishment  of  checking  station  dismissed.  In  re 
Appl.  Western  Crawford  Co.  Farmers  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  568. 

b.    CONSTRUCTION   OF   LINES. 

Public   convenience   and    necessity   of  construction   in   particular 
cases. 

6.  Public  convenience  and  necessity  do  not  require  the  proposed 
construction.  In  re  Appl.  Sevastopol  Farmers  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
524. 

7.  The  construction,  in  the  manner  proposed  by  the  applicants,  of 
the  line  in  question  for  telephwie  service,  is  required  by  public  convenience 
and  necessity.  In  re  Constr.  of  a  Tel.  Line  in  Town  of  Addison,  Wash.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  766. 

c.    EXTENSION   OF   LINES. 

Advance  of  cost  by  subscribers. 

8.  The  telephone  company  may  reasonably  be  expected  to  put  in 
the  extension  if  nine  new  subscribers  can  be  obtained  or  if  any  number  less 
than  nine  desiring  service  will  advance  to  the  company  the  amount  by 
which  the  cost  of  the  extension  exceeds  the  amount  upon  which  the 
revenues  from  the  business  acquired  will  yield  a  reasonable  return,  such 
advances  to  be  paid  if  new  subscribers  are  obtained  within  a  reasonable 
time.     In  re  Extension  Larsen  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  363. 

Application  of  Ch.  610,  Laws  of  1913  (sec.  1797 ni— 71)  to  extensions 
begun  before  the  law  became  effective. 

9.  A  telephone  company  which  had  its  poles  hauled  and  ready  to  set 
for  an  extension  of  its  line  prior  to  the  date  on  which  ch.  610,  laws  of  1913, 
became  effective  is  not  prevented  by  this  law  from  completing  the  con- 
struction of  the  line  as  marked  out  by  the  placing  of  the  poles,  for  the 
legislature  cannot  be  presumed  to  have  intended  the  law  to  affect  exten- 
sions already  made  or  those  in  process  of  construction.  Earl  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Trego  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  457. 

Authority  for  extension  derived  from  the  state  and  not  from  the 
municipality. 

10.  The  contention  of  the  respondent  that  it  is  entitled  to  enter  the 
village  and  compete  with  the  petitioner  by  virtue  of  a  franchise  granted 


454    Telephone  Utilities. — Establi^hm.,  constr.  and  mainten. 

by  the  village  is  untenable,  for  the  authority  to  operate  a  telephone 
utility  is,  under  the  statutes,  derived  from  the  state  and  not  from  any 
local  branch  of  the  government.  {State  ex  ret.  Smythe  v.  Milwaukee  Ind. 
Tel.  Co.,  133  Wis.  588.)  Tri-State  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.  v.  St.  Croix  F.  M. 
Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  437. 

c.    EXTENSION    OF    LINES. — Continued 

Authority  from  Coniiiiission  necessary. 

11.  Under  sec.  1797/n-74  of  the  Statutes  it  is  made  unlawful  for  any 
telephone  company  to  extend  its  service  into  a  territory  already  occupied 
by  another  company  without  bringing  the  matter  before,  and  obtaining 
authority  of  the  Commission.  Tri-State  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.  v.  St^  Croix 
F.  M.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  437,  439. 

Conversion  of  toll  station  into  a  rural  station. 

12.  Public  convenience  and  necessity  would  be  subserved  by  allowing 
the  Wis.  Tel.  Go.  to  maintain  a  local  service  station  in  Eagle  Point  and 
such  finding  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  present  case  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  Anti-duplication  Law.  The  decision  is  not  a  precedent, 
however,  for  future  cases  where  it  may  be  desired  to  convert  a  toll  line 
into  a  local  line.  Should  other  cases  of  such  a  nature  arise,  they  will  be 
dealt  with  on  their  individual  merits.  In  re  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  Toll  Station 
at  Eagle  Point,  1914,  15  R.  G.  454. 

Discrimination   between    stockholders   and    nonstockholders    pro- 
hibited. 

13.  The  fact  that  the  persons  to  whom  the  respondent  desires  to 
extend  its  service  are  shareholders,  is  immaterial,  for  service  must  be 
rendered  to  shareholders  upon  the  same  terms  and  conditions  as  to  other 
subscribers.  Tri-State  Tel.  Sc  Teleg.  Co.  v.  St.  Croix  F.  M.  Tel.  Co., 
1913,   13  R.   G.  437,  439. 

Duplication  of  equipment  of  established  utility. 

14.  The  fact  that  the  paralleling  of  lines  proposed  would  be  only  a 
quarter  of  a  mile  long  does  not  make  such  paralleling  any  less  a  violation 
of  the  statutes.  This  situation  has  arisen  several  times  before  the  Com- 
mission, and  permission  to  parallel  has  uniformly  been  refused.  In  re 
Proposed  Extension  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  744;  In  re  Proposed 
Extension  Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  166;  In  re  Proposed  Extension 
West  Kewaunee  <Sc  Western  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  219;  In  re  Alleged 
Violation  of  Chapter  610  of  the  Laws  of  1913  by  the  Lisbon  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  131;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
396,  398. 

15.  While  the  Anti-duplication  Act  does  not  intend  that  the  presence 
of  the  line  of  a  telephone  company  upon  a  highway  shall  preclude  all  other 
companies  from  approaching  that  highway,  it  does  intend  that  where  a 
prospective  subscriber  to  telephone  service  is  situated  in  close  proximity 
to  an  existing  line  from  which  he  can  receive  service  fairly  suited  to  his 
needs  at  a  reasonable  charge,  he  shall  be  regarded  as  legitimately  a 
prospective  customer  of  the  existing  line.  A  more  liberal  construction  of 
the  law  would  open  the  way  to  that  unnecessary  competition  which  it 


Telephone  Utilities. — Establishm.,  constr.  and  mainten.    455 

is  the  obvious  purpose  of  the  law  to  prevent.     In  re  Extension  Pewaukee- 
Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  57,  58-59. 

16.  While  the  duplication  of  service  rather  than  the  actual  paralleling 
of  lines  is  the  thing  principally  to  be  avoided  in  the  construction  of  new 
telephone  lines,  the  extension  of  a  paralleling  line  from  which  no  service  is 
permitted  to  be  given  to  the  persons  living  along  it  is  likely  to  lead  to 
friction  and  dissatisfaction,  and  the  actual  incumbering  of  the  highway 
and  the  close  proximity  of  the  wires  are  also  likely  to  be  unsatisfactory. 
In  re  Proposed  Extension  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  in  Town  of  Anson,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
510.  515-517. 

Not  ordinarily  the  remedy  for  excessive  rates  or  inadequate 

service. 

.17.  If  the  rates  charged  by  a  telephone  utility  are  excessive  or  if  the 
service  is  inadequate  the  remedy  is  to  make  complaint  to  the  Commission 
in  the  regular  way  rather  than  to  invite  a  duplication  of  telephone  systems. 
In  re  Proposed  Extension  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  744;  In  re  Proposed 
Extension  Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  166;  Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.  State 
Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  597;  In  re  Proposed  Extension 
Fond  du  Lac  Rural  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  676;  In  re  Alleged  Violation 
of  Law  by  Lisbon  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  131;  In  re  Proposed  Extension 
West  Kewaunee  cfc  W.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  219;  In  re  Proposed  Extension 
Mattoon  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  329;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Wis.  Tel. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  396;  In  re  Invest.  People's  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  at  Fall  River, 
1914,  14  R.  C.  793;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Grange  Hall  Farmers  Tel.  Co.y 
1914,  15  R.  C.  11;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Oak  Ridge  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  166. 

Extension  contrary  to  law. 

18.  The  evidence  does  not  indicate  any  willful  violation  of  the  law, 
but  rather  a  failure  to  comprehend  its  requirements.  Had  the  East 
Valley  Tel.  Co.  notified  the  Commission  in  the  regular  way  of  its  proposed 
extension,  and  had  the  same  facts  been  placed  before  the  Commission  as 
those  considered  in  the  present  case,  it  would  have  been  impossible  to 
find  that  public  convenience  and  necessity  did  not  require  the  extension. 
Under  the  circumstances,  the  Commission  will  take  no  action  looking 
toward  the  withdrawal  of  the  East  Valley  Tel.  Co.  from  the  territory  in 
which  the  new  extension  was  built.  In  re  Proposed  Extension  East  Valley 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  802. 

19.  The  respondent's  action  in  -extending  its  service  without  pre- 
viously obtaining  authority  from  the  Commission,  as  required  by  sec. 
1797/n-74  of  the  statutes,  was  illegal.  Tri-State  Tel.  cfc  Teleg.  Co.  v. 
St.  Croix  F.  M.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  437;  In  re  Alleged  Violation  of 
Law  by  Lisbon  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  131;  In  re  Extension  Cornell 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  814;  In  re  Extension  Grange  Hall  Farmers'  Tel.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  11. 

Legality  of  extension  in  municipality  in  which  there  is  already  in 
operation  a  public  utility  engaged  in  similar  service. 

20.  The  Bergen  Telephone  Company  has  maintained  direct  connec- 
tion with  three  private  telephones  installed  within  the  village  of  Clinton 


456     Telephone  Utilities. — Estahlishm.,  constr.  and  mainten. 

which  is  the  district  served  by  the  CUnton  Telephone  Company.  The 
facts  in  this  matter  were  presented  by  the  Commission  to  the  attorney- 
general  and  the  latter  rendered  an  opinion  under  date  of  February  27, 
1913,  to  the  effect  that  the  Bergen  Telephone  Company  was  maintaining 
the  service  mentioned  in  violation  of  sec.  1797m-74  of  the  Public  Utilities 
Law  and  that  the  company  was  therefore  subject  to  the  penalty  imposed 
by  sec.  1797/r?-95  of  the  same  law.  The  fact  that  the  number  of  sub- 
scribers given  direct  service  is  small  and  the  further  fact  that  some  or 
all  of  these  subscribers  have  furnished  their  own  equipment  are  immaterial. 
The  practice  in  question  is  clearly  illegal  and  must  be  discontinued.  No 
order  of  the  Commission  is  necessary  in  the  matter.  In  re  Physical 
Conn.  Betw.  Clinton  &  Bergen  Tel  Cos.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  249,  257-258. 

c.    EXTENSION    OF   LINES. — Continued 

Legality  of  extension  in  municipality  in  which  there  is  already  in 
operation  a  public  utility  engaged  in  similar  service. 

21.  It  appeared  that  prior  to  July  11,  1913,  the  date  on  which  ch. 
610,  laws  of  1913,  amending  sec.  1797/n-74  of  the  statutes,  under  which 
this  proceeding  arises,  went  into  effect,  the  company  was  giving  certain 
service  in  the  village  of  Holcombe  and  that  prior  to  the  hearing  the 
extensions  here  involved  were  made  under  the  misapprehension  that 
the  village  was  incorporated.  It  did  not  appear  that  the  demand,  which 
the  new  service  satisfied,  could  pot  have  been  met  by  the  Chippewa 
County  Tel.  Co.,  whose  lines  the  extensions  in  question  paralleled. 
Respondent  ordered  to  permanently  discontinue  all  local  service  given 
from  such  of  its  lines  as  were  constructed  in  the  town  of  Holcombe  since 
July  11,  1913.     In  re  Extension  Cornell  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  814. 

Proposed  extension  permitted  by  law  unless  Commission  finds  that 
public  convenience  and  necessity  do  not  require  the  exten- 
sion. 

22.  The  only  action  required  of  this  Commission  by  the  law  in  cases 
involving  the  duplication  of  telephone  lines  within  the  same  territory 
by  the  extension  of  new  lines,  is  a  finding  that  public  convenience  and 
necessity  do  not  require  the  proposed  extension.  Where  the  Commission 
does  not  make  such  a  finding,  the  statute  itself  operates  to  authorize 
the  extension.  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Owen  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G. 
630,  631;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  441,  443; 
In  re  Proposed  Extension  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  in  Town  of  Anson,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
510,  515-517;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  East  Valley  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
802,  803-804. 

Public  convenience  and  necessity  of  extension  in  particular  cases. 

23.  The  question  of  public  convenience  and  necessity  of  extensions 
was  passed  upon  in  the  following  cases:  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Ettrick 
Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  744;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Clinton  Tel.  Co.'s 
Lines,  1913,  13  R.  C.  166;  Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.  State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co. 
ei  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  597;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Owen  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13 
R.  C.  630;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Fond  du  Lac  Rural  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 

13  R.  C.  676;  In  re  Alleged  Violation  of  Law  by  Lisbon  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 

14  R.  C.  131;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  of  West  Kewaunee  <&  W.  Tel.  Co., 


Telephone  Utilities. — Establishm.,  constr.  and  mainten.    457 

1914,  14  R.  C.  219;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Mattoon  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  329;  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  396; 
In  re  Proposed  Extension  Maijville  Rural  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  402; 
In  re  Proposed  Extension  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  441;  In  re  Proposed 
Extension  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  in  Town  of  Anson,  1914,  14  R.  C.  510;  In  re 
Proposed  Extension  of  the  Random  Lake  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  757; 
In  re  Proposed  Extension  East  Valley  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  802;  In  re 
Extension  Pewaukee- Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  57;. /n  re  Proposed 
Extension  Oak  Ridge  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  166;  In  re  Extension  of  St. 
Croix  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  241. 

Service   in   territory   eqviidistant   from   lines   of  two   companies — 
Which  company  shall  serve. 

24.  When  there  is  a  question  as  to  which  of  two  telephone  companies 
shall  be  allowed  to  serve  a  given  territory  which  is  about  equidistant  from 
the  lines  of  both  companies  and  which  is  entirely  new  to  both  companies, 
so  that  neither  will  have  to  have  its  existing  investment  in  any  way 
impaired  by  the  extension  of  the  other,  consideration  may  well  be  given  to 
some  matters  that  might  be  extraneous  to  the  issue  if  an  actual  dupli- 
cation of  lines  were  contemplated.  Among  these  are  the  preponderance 
of  the  subscribers  of  one  company  in  the  territory  in  question,  the  number 
and  local  importance  of  the  points  that  can  be  reached  without  the  use  of 
toll  lines,  the  relative  length  of  time  the  two  companies  have  been  operating 
in  the  surrounding  territory,  and  the  business  and  social  habits  and  needs 
of  the  individuals  who  are  to  use  the  new  service.  The  greater  diligence  of 
one  company  in  securing  subscribers  may  also  be  taken  into  account  in 
some  cases.  In  re  Proposed  Extension  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  in  Town  of  Anson, 
1914,  14  R.  G.  510,  515. 

Statutory  requirements. 

25.  It  is  the  express  intent  of  ch.  610  of  the  laws  of  1913  to  eliminate 
the  waste  of  unwarranted  competition,  and  the  Gommission  has  repeatedly 
refused  to  countenance  the  extension  of  lines  where  adequate  service  can 
be  rendered  by  the  company  already  in  the  field.  In  re  Invest.  People's 
Tel.  Co.  et  al.  at  Fall  River,  1914,  14  R.  G.  793,  795. 

d.  FRANCHISES   OR   PRIVILEGES. 
Acquisition  of. 

26.  Under  the  decisions  of  the  supreme  court  of  this  state  no  local 
franchise  is  required  by  a  telephone  company  and  none  could,  therefore, 
lawfully  be  granted  by  the  local  authorities.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co., 
1909,  4  R.  G.  1,  60;  Tri-State  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.  v.  St.  Croix  F.  M.  Tel.  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  G.  437. 

e.  PAY   STATIONS. 
Abolishment  of.  ' 

27.  Either  all  the  business  houses  should  have  pay  station  service  or 
it  should  be  abolished  altogether.  The  cost  of  instaUing  the  additional 
stations  would  exceed  the  cost  of  another  trunk  line  to  La  Grosse.  Troubles 
usually  encountered  with  nickel  phones  tend  to  condemn  their  use  in  a 
small  town,  and  their  aboUtion  in  the  present  case  would  effect  economies. 
Coady  et  al.  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  831. 


458     Telephone  Utilities. — Establishm.,  constr.  and  mainten. 


f.    TELEPHONE   EXCHANGES. 

Public  convenience  and  necessity  of  additional  exchange. 

28.  The  applicant  has  no  right  to  increase  the  number  of  its  telephones 
in  the  city  of  Prairie  du  Chien  except  upon  a  showing  that  public  con- 
venience and  necessity  require  another  telephone  exchange  within  the  city 
for  the  purpose  of  rendering  local  service.  Citizens  Tel.  Co.  of  Eau  Claire 
V.  Railroad  Comm.  of  Wis.,  1914,  146  N.  W.  798.  Public  convenience  and 
necessity  do  not  require  an  additional  telephone  exchange  within  the  city 
of  Prairie  du  Chien.  In  re  Appl.  Western  Crawford  Co.  Farmers'  Mut. 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  568. 

Relocation  of. 

29.  The  relocation  of  a  telephone  exchange  is  primarily  a  function  of 
the  company  if  such  relocation  will  not  involve  the  company  in  un- 
reasonable expenditure  for  construction  or  operation.  Purves  et  al.  v. 
Friendship  Tel.  Co.,  1914, 15  R.  C.  530. 

g.    THROUGH   LINES. 

Construction  of. 

30.  Construction  of  through  lines  ordered.  Fesenfeld  &  Barber 
et  al.  V  Mazomanie  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3"  R.  C.  514;  Johnson  et  al.  v 
Lodi  Tel.  Exch.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  713. 

III.  OPERATION. 

a.    BRIDGED    TELEPHONE    SERVICE. 

Rates  for  bridged  telephone  service,  see  Rates — Telephone,  62. 

b.    PHYSICAL   CONNECTION. 

Establishment  of — Conditions  precedent. 

31.  Before  the  duty  of  making  a  physical  connection  of  telephone 
lines  under  the  statute  is  imposed  upon  telephone  utilities  and  can  be 
enforced  in  any  case,  it  must  appear:  (1)  that  the  connection  is  required 
by  public  convenience  and  necessity;  (2)  that  it  will  not  result  in  irreparable 
injury  to  the  owner  or  other  users  of  the  facilities  of  such  public  utilities; 
and  (3)  that  no  substantial  detriment  to  the  service  will  result  therefrom. 
Unless  these  conditions  exist  simultaneously,  the  utilities  are  free  to  make 
or  to  refuse  to  make  connection  of  their  lines,  as  their  action  in  the  matter 
in  such  event  lies  entirely  within  their  discretion.  Winter  v.  La  Crosse 
Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  748,  755;  McGowan  v.  Rock  County  Tel.  Co. 
et  al,  1914,  14  R.  C.  529,  537;  State  Aid  Highway  Comm.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co. 
et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  244;  Arena  &  Ridgeway  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mazomanie  Tel. 
Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  390,  392-394. 

Statutory  requirements. 

32.  Where  physical  connection  of  lines  is  enforced  under  the  statute, 
it  is  contemplated  that  the  companies  shall  agree  upon  the  apportionment 


Telephone  Utilities. — Operation 459 

of  the  joint  tolls,  and  it  is  only  in  case  of  failure  of  agreement  that  the 
Commission  has  authority  to  make  the  apportionment.  Ettrick  Tel.  Co. 
V.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  25,  27. 

33.  No  telephone  company  can  insist  that  a  connecting  telephone 
company  furnish  its  toll  line  facilities  free  of  charge,  for  that  would  be 
clearly  taking  property  without  compensation  and  would  meet  the  con- 
demnation of  constitutional  provisions.  In  compelling  physical  con- 
nection between  two  telephone  systems,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
statute  provides  for  reasonable  terms  and  conditions.  It  could  not  legally 
provide  that  one  company  should  give  another  the  use  of  its  toll  lines 
without  compensation.  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  25,  28. 

34.  Section  1797/7Z-4  of  the  Statutes  imposes  upon  the  Commission 
the  power  and  duty  of  requiring  physical  connection.  Hawkins  Creek 
Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Badger  Tel  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  655,  661-664. 

35.  Section  1797/n-4  of  the  Statutes  states  definitely  under  what 
circumstances  physical  connection  shall  be  made.  These  are  (I )  whenever 
public  convenience  and  necessity  require  such  physical  connection,  and 
(2)  such  physical  connection  will  not  result  in-  irreparable  injury  to  the 
owners  or  other  users  of  the  facilities,  nor  (3)  in  any  substantial  detriment 
to  the  service.  Belmont  S:  Pleasant  View  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  W.  O.  Tel.  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  C.  92,  102. 

— —     Constitutionality. 

36.  There  is  nothing  in  the  letter  or  in  the  spirit  of  the  law  that 
savors  of  confiscation,  and  if  administered  according  to  its  obvious  intent 
and  purpose,  no  property  rights  will  be  impaired  and  no  injury  inflicted 
upon  anyone.  Winter  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  748,  756; 
McGowan  v.  Rock  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  C.  529,  531-533. 


With  respect  to  public  convenience  and  necessity. 

37.  The  term  "public  convenience  and  necessity"  is  indeterminate. 
It  is  usually  found  in  statutes  requiring  some  act  to  be  performed  or 
creating  sonie  new  public  obligation  not  imposed  by  the  common  law 
w:hich  interferes  with  private  rights.  As  a  justification  for  such  inter- 
ference there  must  be  a  public  exigency  demanding  it,  which  is  always  a 
question  of  fact  depending  upon  a  variety  of  considerations.  Winter  v. 
La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  R.  C.  748,  756;  McGowan  v.  Rock  County 
Tel  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  C.  529,  537. 

Establishment  of  in  particular  cases. 

38.  Physical  connection  of  telephone  systems  ordered.  In  re  Appl 
Linzy-Brook  Tel  Assn.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  189;  In  re  Physical  Connection 
between  Clinton  &  Bergen  Tel  Cos.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  598;  Winter  v.  La  Crosse 
Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1913, 11  R.  C.  748;  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  C.  68;  Curtiss  cfc  Withee  Tel.  Co.  v.  Owen  Tel  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C. 
538;  Johnson  et  al.  v.  Readfield  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  C.  102;  McGowan 
V.  Rock  County  Tel  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  C.  529;  Hawkins  Creek  Tel  Co. 
et  al.  V.  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  655;  Winter  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co. 
et  al,  1914,  15  R.  C.  36;  Belmont  &  Pleasant  View  Tel.  Co.  et  al  v.  W.  O. 


460 Telephone  Utilities. — Operation 

Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  92;  McGowan  v.  Rock  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  378. 

b.    PHYSICAL   CONNECTION. — Continued 

Establishment  of  in  particular  cases. 

39.  Petition  for  physical  connection  dismissed.  New  Lisbon  Mut. 
Tel.  Co.  V.  Mansion  El.  Sew.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  213;  Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v. 
State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  597;  Belmont  &  Pleasant 
View  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  W.  0.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  92;  Diamond  Grove 
Tel.  Co.  V.  Mineral  Ft.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  185;  State  Aid  Highwaij 
Comm.  V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  244;  Farmers'  Union  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Mt.  Vernon  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  286;  Arena  <Sc  Ridgeway  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Mazomanie  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  390. 

Right  to  refuse  connection  with  grounded  lines. 

40.  The  proposed  regulation  that  the  Mineral  Pt.  Tel.  Co.  will  not 
extend  its  switching  service  to  other  rural  lines  unless  the  lines  are  full 
metallic  and  with  not  more  than  ten  parties  on  a  line  appears  to  be  no 
more  than  a  reasonable  requirement  in  the  interests  of  good  service. 
Applicant  is  authorized  to  refuse  connection  to  its  switchboard  to  rural 
lines  not  now  connected,  except  upon  compliance  with  this  regulation. 
In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Ft.  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  285,  302-304. 

Terms  and  conditions  of  joint  use. 

41.  Terms  and  conditions  for  use  of  physical  connection  established. 
In  re  Physical  Connection  Bergen  Tel.  Co.  &  Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  10 
R.  C.  598;  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.  W.  Crawford  Co.  F.M.  Tel.  Co.,  1912, 
11  R.  C.  32;  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  W.  Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  Tel.  Co.  et  at., 
1912,  11  R.  C.  42;  In  re  Clinton  Tel.  Co.  and  Bergen  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13 
R.  C.  249;  Johnson  et  al.  v.  Readfield  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  102; 
Curiiss  <Sc  Withee  Tel.  Co.  v.  Owen  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  419;  McGowan  v. 
Rock  Co.  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1914,  14  R.  G.  529;  Hawkins  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  655;  Winter  v.  LaCrosse  Tel.  Co.  et  al., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  36;  In  re  Appl.  New  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  60; 
In  re  Toll  Rates,  Markesan  to  Kingston,  1914,  15  R.  G.  288;  McGowan  v. 
Rock  Co.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  378. 

c.    PRIVATE   BRANCH   EXCHANGE. 

An  extension  of  public  telephone  system, 

42.  The  private  branch  exchange  system  within  the  hotels  is  but  an 
extension  of  the  telephone  company's  system  as  far  as  the  former  is  used 
to  furnish  telephone  service  to  the  public  in  connection  with  the  latter. 
In  such  connection  the  stations  in  the  rooms  of  the  hotels  are  as  much  pay 
stations  as  those  located  in  the  company's  booths  in  the  hotel  lobbies. 
National  Travelers'  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  678,  690. 

d.    REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. 

Adequacy  of  service — In  general. 

43.  Question  of  adequacy  of  service  in  general  passed  upon.  In  re 
Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  98;  Lorenz  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1908, 
3  R.  G.  186;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  647;   In  re  Appl. 


Telephone  Utilities. — Operation  461 


People's  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  92;  Juneau  El.  Co.  v.  New  Lisbon  Tel.  Co., 
1911,  8  R.  C.  399;  Hoffman  et  al.  v.  Wausau  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  480; 
Johnson  et  al.  v.  Lodi  Tel.  Exch.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  713;  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Western  Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  12  R.  C.  140;  In  reinvest. 
Elderon  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  23;  In  re  Physical  Conn,  between  Clinton 
&  Bergen  Tel.  Cos.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  249;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of 
Beetown,  1914,  13  R.  C.  540;  Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.  State  Long  Distance  Co.  et  al., 

1914,  13  R.  C.  597;  In  re  Appl.  Troy  &  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14 
R.  C.  157;  In  re  Appl.  Badger  State  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  407; 
In  re  Invest.  People's  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  at  Fall  River,  1914,  14  R.  C.  793; 
In  re  Invest.  Service  Nebagamon  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  50;  Purtell  et  al.  v. 
Hubertus  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  152;  In  re  Invest.  Service  Door  County 
Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  375,  377;  In  re  Appl.  Marion  Sc  Northern 
Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  552;  Pospichal  et  al.  v.  Muscoda  Mutual  Tel.  Co., 

1915,  15  R.  G.  578;  Grantman  et  al.  v.  Theresa  Union  Tel.  Co.',  1915,  15 
R.  G.  582;  In  re  Appl.  Clark  County  Tel.  Co.  to  Increase  Rates,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  822. 

Extension  of  service. 

44.  The  fact  that  the  extensions  in  question  would  probably  decrease 
the  number  of  toll  calls  made  from  Mikana  is  not  entitled  to  consideration, 
since  respondent  can  not  limit  the  local  service  in  order  to  increase  the 
revenue  derived  from  toll  service.  Respondent  ordered  to  extend  its 
rural  telephone  service  from  its  exchange  at  Rice  Lake  to  all  persons 
living  within  a  reasonable  distance  of  its  toll  line,  and  south  of  a  line  one 
mile  north  of  its  existing  toll  station,  and  who  demand  such  service. 
Brooks  et  al.  v.  Barron  County  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  499. 

* Interference  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines. 


45.  For  the  reasons  stated  in  the  case  of  Ebenezer  Tel.  Co.  v.  Milwaukee 
Lt.  Ht.  Sc  T.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  619,  the  Commission  is  without  juris- 
diction. Platteville,  etc.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  622. 

Night  service. 

46.  Respondent  ordered  to  provide  regular  switchboard  service  for 
all  its  lines  between  the  hours  of  5  a.  m.  and  10  p.  m.  and  handle  calls  of 
an  urgent  nature  at  all  other  times  from  any  of  its  lines,  or  connecting 
lines,  subject  to  rules  to  be  submitted  to  the  Commission  for  approval. 
W.  R.  Howard  <Sc  Sons  et  al.  v.  Greenwood  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  323. 

Number  of  telephones  per  line. 

47.  Telephone  company  ordered  to  limit  number  of  telephones  on 
rural  lines.  In  re  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  98;  Arena  <Sc  Ridg'y  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Troy  &  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  763;  Hawkins 
Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  655;  In  re  Invest. 
Service  Door  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  375;  Pospichal  et  al.  v. 
Muscoda  Mutual  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  578. 

Relocation  of  the  exchange. 

48.  It  is  practicable  to  render  adequate  service  from  an  exchange 
located  in  either  Adams  or  Friendship  and  the  choice  of  either  location 


462 Telephone  Utilities. — Operation 

will  not  involve  the  utility  in  unreasonable  expenditure  for  construction 
or  operation.  The  choice  between  the  two  locations  is  therefore  the 
function  of  the  utility  and  not  of  the  Commission.  Purves  et  al.  v. 
Friendship  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  530. 

d.    REQUIREMENT   AS   TO    SERVICE    AND    FACILITIES. — Continued 

Adequacy  of  service — Service  in  railroad  stations. 

See  Station  Facilities,  32-35. 

"Silent  number"  telephones. 

49.  The  maintenance  of  silent  number  service  cannot  be  regarded  as 
an  unjust  discrimination  on  the  part  of  the  telephone  company  and  there 
is  no  other  ground  upon  which  the  practice  can  be  condemned.  It  is 
true  that  there  is  an  element  of  discrimination  in  the  action  of  the  indi- 
vidual who  has  the  silent  number  service  in  giving  his  number  to  his 
friends  or  acquaintances  and  withholding  it  from  the  general  public, 
but  this  is  a  matter  which  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  individual. 
In  re  Use  of  Silent  Numbers  by  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  587. 


Statutory  requirements. 

50.  The  law  requires  the  service  of  telephone  utilities  to  be  reasonably 
adequate.  Lorenz  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  186,  262;  Berend 
V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  155;  Connor  et  al.  v.  Marsh  et  al., 
1911,  6  R.  C.  589;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  647; 
Hoffman  et  al.  v.  Wausau  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  480. 

51.  Sec.  1791a  of  the  Statutes,  which  makes  it  the  duty  of  every 
telephone  company  to  connect  the  telephone  of  any  subscriber,  upon 
request  of  that  subscriber,  with  the  telephone  of  any  other  subscriber, 
without  regard  to  the  character  of  the  messages  to  be  transmitted,  pro- 
vided they  are  not  obscene  or  profane,  is  in  conflict  with  the  Public 
Utilities  Law,  which  was  enacted  subsequently,  and  must  therefore  be 
regarded  as  having  been  repealed  by  the  latter  which  merely  provides 
that  "every  public  utility  is  required  to  furnish  reasonably  adequate 
service  and  facilities."  Sec.  1797/n-3.  In  re  Use  of  Silent  Numbers  by 
Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  587,  592. 

,  Switching  service. 

52.  The  respondent  would  be  within  its  rights  in  treating  this 
application  for  service  as  the  application  of  an  entirely  new  rural  line 
and  insisting  that  the  requirements  for  a  full  metallic  line  with  a  limited 
number  of  subscribers  and  other  requirements  set  forth  in  the  order  cited 
above,  be  met  by  the  petitioner's  line  before  service  is  furnished.  Diamond 
Grove  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mineral  Pt.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  185. 

Through  line. 

53.  Construction  of  through  line  ordered.  Fesenfeld  &  Barber  et  al. 
V.  Mazomanie  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  514;  4  R.  G.  Ill;  Coady  et  al.  v. 
La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  831;  Grantman  et  al.  v.  Theresa  Union 
Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  582. 


Telephone  Utilities. — Operation 463 

Uniform  service,  rates,  rules,  etc. 

54.  Although  in  certain  cases  the  Commission  has  estabhshed  uniform 
rates  and  practices  for  utiUties  operating  in  the  same  city,  thereby  pre- 
venting rate  wars  with  their  wasteful  duplication  and  almost  inevitable 
consolidation,  it  does  not  appear,'  under  the  circumstances  of  the  present 
case,  that  there  should  be  an  order  fixing  uniform  rates,  rules,  regulations 
and  service  among  telephone  utilities  operating  in  LaFayette  county,  or 
placing  the  rates  in  Darlington,  of  the  Darlington  Farmers'  exchange  and 
the  LaFayette  County  Tel.  Co.  upon  the  same  basis.  Belmont  &  Pleasant 
View  Tel.  Co.  et  at.  v.  W.  0.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  92. 

Purchase  or  lease  of  instruments. 

55.  The  purchase  or  lease  of  instruments  by  public  utilities  is  neces- 
sitated by  sec.  1797/n-90  of  the  Public  Utilities  Law.  In  re  Badger  Tel. 
Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  98,  103;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown,  1914, 
13  R.  C.  540,  580. 

Urban  subscribers  on  rural  lines. 

56.  The  practice  followed  generally  by  telephone  companies  in 
Wisconsin  in  refusing  to  place  village  subscribers  on  rural  lines  is,  in  most 
instances,  in  the  interest  of  good  service.  In  re  Appl.  Farmers'  Tel.  Co. 
ofBeetown,  1914,  13  R.  C.  540,  575-576. 

Withdra^val  of  service. 

57.  Past  misconduct  of  a  subscriber  will  not  justify  the  refusal  of 
future  service  to  him  unless  it  has  been  habitual  or  so  frequent  and  under 
such  circumstances  that  his  assurance  of  reformation  cannot  be  reasonably 
relied  upon  as  sincere.  In  re  Invest.  Pulaski  Merchants'  &  Farmers'  Tel. 
Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  558. 

58.  The  regulation  of  the  company  prohibiting  subscribers  on  party 
lines  from  "listening  in"  except  to  ascertain  whether  the  line  is  open  or 
busy  is  reasonable.  However,  while  persistent  and  gross  infractions  of 
telephone  utility  rules  might  warrant  a  permanent  exclusion  from  the  use 
of  the  utility  service,  the  "listening  in"  and  remarks  following  were  not 
of  a  character,  in  the  present  case,  to  warrant  depriving  the  subscriber  of 
te'ephone  service  indefinitely.  In  re  Refusal  Oconto  Rural  Tel.  Co.  to  Ex- 
tend Service,  1914,  15  R.  C.  277. 

59.  Though  the  te'ephone  company  was  justified  in  discontinuing 
service  to  the  subscriber  upon  his  refusal  to  pay  his  bill  in  full,  the  company 
is  not  justified  by  the  existence  of  his  previous  indebtedness,  in  refusing 
to  give  him  present  service  if  he  is  ready  and  willing  to  give  the  company 
reasonable  security  for  the  payment  of  future  bills.  The  company  is 
ordered  to  restore  its  telephone  service  to  Mr.  Lemcke  upon  the  tender 
by  him  of  payment  in  advance  for  a  reasonable  period  at  the  rates  now 
charged,  or  the  deposit  by  him  with  the  company  of  a  sufiicient  sum  of 
money  to  secure  the  prompt  payment  of  rentals  which  may  become 
due  in  the  future  for  services  rendered  in  accordance  with  such  rules  and 
regulations  as  the  company  may  publish  and  file  with  the  Commission. 
Ten  days  is  deemed  a  reasonable  time  for  the  formulation  of  such  rules 


464  ■ Telephone  Utilities. — Operation 

and  their  submission  to  the  Commission.     In  re  Refusal  Farmers*  Union 
Tel.  Co.  to  Furnish  Service,  1913,  13  R.  C.  399,  402/ 

d.    REQUIREMENT   AS   TO   SERVICE   AND   FACILITIES. — Continued 

Withdrawal  of  service. 

60.  Complaint  that  the  Wausau  Tel.  Co.  has  put  its  subscribers  to 
trouble  and  inconvenience  by  shutting  off  its  patrons  without  notice 
even  when  all  bills  for  service  were  paid.  Held:  If  this  condition  exists, 
it  constitutes  inexcusable  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  telephone  utility. 
The  respondent  is  ordered  to  keep  a  record  in  convenient  form  which  will 
show  the  status  of  the  financial  relations  existing  between  the  respondent 
and  each  of  its  subscribers,  and  no  subscriber  shall  be  cut  off  for  non- 
payment of  bills  except  after  reasonable  notice.  Hoffman  et  al.  u.  Wausau 
Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  480. 

e.    STANDARDS   OF   SERVICE. 

Establishment  of. 

61.  The  Public  Utilities  Law  requires  all  public  utilities  to  furnish 
adequate  service  and  empowers  the  Railroad  Commission  to  formulate 
standards  of  adequate  service.  BeHeving  that  the  establishment  of 
standards  for  telephone  service  would  be  of  material  aid  in  bettering 
such  service  throughout  the  state,  an  investigation  of  the  matter  was 
instituted  by  the  Commission  and  standards  were  established.  In  re 
Invest.  Standards  for  Tel.  Service  in  Wisconsin,  1914,  15  R.  G.  1. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — ^Telephone. 

IV.  RIGHT  OF  WAY  AND  OTHER  INTERESTS  IN  LAND. 

Rights  in  and  use  of  highways  and  public  places. 

62.  The  rights  obtained  by  pubhc  service  corporations  to  occupy 
the  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  merely  confer  rights  as  against  the  public. 
Abutting   property   owners   must   be   compensated   for   the    additional 

'  burden  upon  the  fee  caused  by  the  location  of  the  telephone  and  electric 
.  poles  within  streets  and  alleys.  In  the  present  case  property  holders  are 
not  complaining,  and,  if  they  have  not  been  compensated  for  the  location 
of  the  poles  in  question,  their  rights  in  the  premises  have  been  barred 
by  the  statute  of  Umitations,  sec.  1778/i.  Burns  v.  La  Crosse  G.  Sz  El. 
Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  195,  197-198. 

V.  TELEPHONE  COMPANIES. 

Assumption  of  Public  Utilities  Law  that  telephone  companies  are 
subject  to  ordinary  laws  of  competition. 

63.  The  Pubhc  Utilities  Law  excepts  telephone  companies  from  those 
of  its  provisions  which  protect  existing  plants  from  excessive  or  unfair 
competition.  It  is  well  understood  that  the  theory  of  the  law  is,  that 
utility  enterprises  are  generally  monopolistic  in  their  character.  This 
theory  was  not  extended  to  include  telephone  companies.  These  alone 
are  left  in  a  class  by  themselves,  supposed  to  be  governed  by  the  ordinary 
laws  of  competition.     Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  60. 


Terminal  Facilities  465 


Capital    stock — Requirement   as   to   ownership   of  stock   by   sub- 
scribers. 

64.  The  requirement  that  all  subscribers  must  own  a  share  of  stock 
in  the  company  is  of  doubtful  legality,  but  it  is  not  considered  necessary 
at  the  present  time  to  pass  upon  the  matter.  In  re  AppL  Morris  Tel.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  426,  427. 

Franchises   and   powers — Usurpation   of  franchise   or   exercise   of 
unauthorized  pow^ers  a  grievance  against  sovereignty. 

65.  The  usurpation  of  a  franchise  or  the  exercise  of  unauthorized 
powers  by  a  corporation  is  a  grievance  against  sovereignty  which  the 
state  alone  can  redress  in  a  proper  action  instituted  in  the  courts  for  that 
purpose,  and  is  not  a  matter  upon  which  a  private  party  can  predicate 
a  right  in  any  action  or  proceeding  against  the  corporation.  Such  wrongs 
are  not  subjects  that  can  be  thus  inquired  into  collaterally  for  the  purpose 
of  righting  them.  {Farwell  Co.  v.  Wolf  et  al.,  1897,  96  Wis.  10;  Hubbard 
V.  Haley  et  a/.,  1897,  96  Wis.  578,  587;  Bergeron  v.  Hobbs  et  al.,  1897, 
96  Wis.  647;  Zinc  Carbonate  Co.  v.  First  National  Bank  of  Shullsburg, 
1899,  103  Wis.  125,  131;  Attorney-General  ex  rel.  Askew  v.  Smith  et  al., 
1901,  109  Wis.  532,  541;  Security  National  Bank  of  Sioux  City,  Iowa,  u. 
St.  Croix  Power  Co.,  1903,  117  Wis.  211,  217.)  Fond  du  Lac  Business 
Men's  Assn.  et  al.  u.  \V[s.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  340,  348-349. 

VALUATION. 
See  Valuation. 

TELL  TALES. 

Rules  relating  to  erection  and  maintenance  of  tell  tales,  see  Railroads,  62. 

TEMPORARY  SERVICE. 

Extra  charges  for  temporary  service,  see  Rates — Electric,  88;  Rates — 
Telephone,  70-71. 

TERMINAL  CHARGES. 

See  Demurrage  Charges;  Switching  Charges. 

TERMINAL  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  operating  expenses  between  terminal  and  movement 
expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs:     ■ 

for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  77. 

for  railroads,  see  Accounting,  130. 
As  element  considered  in  making  express  rates,  see  Rates — Express,  3. 

railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  131-134. 

TERMINAL  FACILITIES. 

See  Station  Facilities;  Switch  Connections. 


466  Theatrical  Cars 


THEATRICAL  CARS. 

Refusal  of  railroad  company  to  carry  a  private  theatrical  car,  see  Train 
Service,  19. 

THERMOSTATS. 

Thermostats  to  be  furnished  at  cost  to  consumers,  see  Heating  Utili- 
ties, 4. 

THROUGH  LINES. 

See  Connecting  Carriers. 

Construction  of  through  telephone  lines  ordered,  see  Telephone  Utili- 
ties, 30. 

THROUGH  FREIGHT  LINE. 

Petition  for  a  sidetrack   on   a  line  devoted  to  through  freight  business, 
dismissed.     Thomas  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  716. 

THROUGH  RATES.. 

Joint  or  through  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  63-102. 

TICKETS. 

Facilities  for  purchasing  commutation  tickets,  see  Street  Railways,  35. 
Interurban  railways,  sale  of  reduced  rate  tickets  on  cars,  see  Interurban 

Railways,  13. 
Issuance  of  street  railway  tickets  including  skating  privileges  an  unjust 

discrimination,  see  Discrimination,  64. 

SPECIAL  CLASSES  OF  TICKETS. 

Commutation  tickets — Carrier  not  compelled  to  issue. 

1.  In  view  of  the  holding  of  the  United  States  supreme  court,  in  the 
case  of  the  Lake  Shore  cfc  Michigan  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  1898,  173 
U.  S.  684,  the  Commission  cannot  in  any  instance  require  the  sale  of 
tickets  at  less  than  the  maximum  rate  fixed  by  statute.  Lieberman  v. 
C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  330,  334-335. 

Conditions  under  which  issued. 

2.  They  are  usually  issued  to  persons  residing  in  suburban  places, 
whose  employment  is  in  cities,  and  who  are,  therefore,  required  to  travel 
regularly  between  their  homes  and  places  of  employment,  and  also  to 
school  children  living  in  territories  adjoining  towns  and  cities  where 
high  schools  and  colleges  are  maintained,  whose  advantages  could  not  be 
enjoyed  by  such  children  except  for  the  reduced  rates  for  travel  at  which 
such  tickets  are  sold.  Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C. 
330,  332. 


Tobacco  467 


Definition  of. 

3.  A  commutation  ticket  has  been  defined  as  one  issued  at  reduced 


rates,  authorizing  the  holder  to  travel  for  a  given  number  of  times  or  a 
given  length  of  time,  or  both,  between  given  points,  upon  the  road  issuing 
them.  (Harper,  Law  of  Interstate  Commerce,  191.)  Lieberman  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  330,  332. 

Purpose  of  carrier  in  issuing. 

4.  The  commutation  ticket  was  placed  on  sale  largely  to  relieve  the 
crowding  and  congestion  of  population  in  the  large  cities.  Suburban 
residents  were  thus  enabled  to  enjoy  the  comforts  that  space  and  fresh 
air  afford  and  to  avoid  the  crowded  tenement  house.  The  business  is 
frequently  carried  on  on  trains  used  exclusively  for  that  purpose,  and  the 
large  number  of  passengers  carried  enables  the  carriers  to  conduct  the 
business  at  a  rate  that  would  be  unprofitable,  if  not  ruinous,  were  it 
generally  applied.  In  time  the  interurban  lines  will  i>o  doubt  control 
most  of  the  traffic,  but  until  they  do,  it  is  in  the  interest  of  public  health 
and  morals  that  this  class  of  traffic  should  be  encouraged,  at  least  so  long 
as  it  is  not  a  burden  on  other  travelers.  The  wholesale  principle,  too, 
enters  into  the  considerations  which  lead  to  the  sale  of  such  tickets,  as 
they  are  good  for  a  specified  number  of  rides  between  given  points  and  the 
time  within"  which  they  can  be  used  is  limited.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.'502;  Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  330,  332. 

Right  of  carrier  to  prescribe  conditions  of  sale. 

5.  Ordinarily,  the  price  of  commutation  tickets,  the  conditions  upon 
which  they  are  sold,  and  the  distance  from  a  given  city  to  which  com- 
mutation rates  shall  be  extended,  are  matters  within  the  discretion  of  the 
carrier.  (Spring  et  al.  v.  B.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1900,  8  I.  C.  C.  R.  443.) 
Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  330,  332. 


TILE. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile,  see  Rates — Railroad,  75. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  tile,  see  Rates — Railroad,  212. 


TILE  AND  BRICK. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  brick,  see  Rates — Railroad,  75. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick,  see  Rates — Railroad,  212. 


TOBACCO. 

Establishment  of  concentration  rates  on  tobacco,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

38. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  tobacco,  see  Rates — Railroad,  293. 


468  Toilet  Facilities 


TOILET  FACILITIES. 

Installation  of  modern  sanitary  toilet  facilities  in  station,  see  Station 
Facilities,  36. 

TOLL  BRIDGE  RATES. 

See  Rates — Toll  Bridge. 

TOLL  BRIDGES. 

Rate  of  depreciation  of  toll  bridge,  see  Depreciation,  45. 

TOLL  DROPS. 

Rates  for  telephone  toll  drops,  see  Rates — Telephone,  74. 

TOLL  RATES. 

See  Rates — Telephone,  1^-11. 

TOLL  STATION. 

Toll  station  changed  into  a  rural  station,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  12. 

TON-MILE. 

When  improper  basis  for  rates. 

1.  Average  rate  per  ton-mile  for  entire  railway  system  not  considered 
fair  basis  for  making  rates  for  sugar  beets.  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  258. 

TON-MILE  COSTS. 

Ton-mile  costs  less  for  long  hauls  than  for  short  hauls,  see  Rates — 
Railroads,  137. 

TON-MILE  RATE. 

Differences  in  ton-mile  rates  in  various  group  or  blanket  rates,  see  Rates 
— Railroad,  53. 

TOWNS. 

See  also  Municipalities. 

Town  board,  authority  over  highway  and  railroad  crossing,  town  super- 
visors the  judges  under  the  statute  of  the  necessity  for  a  highway, 
see  Railroads,  7. 
consent   of,    necessary   for   abandonment   of   street   railway   track 
constructed  under  franchise  granted  by  such  board,  see  Street 
Railways,  9. 


Traffic  Diversity  Factor 469 

Town  board,  petition  of,  for  alteration  in  crossing  of  a  highway  by  a 
railroad,  see  Railroads,  3-6. 
petition  of,  or  niember  of  town  board,  as  condition  precedent  to 

jurisdiction    of    Commission    over    crossing    of    railroad    by 

highway,  see  Railroad  Commission,  77. 
proceedings  of,  in  laying  out  highways  for  railroad  crossing,  validity 

of  proceedings,  question  for  courts,  see  Railroad  Commission, 

75. 
request  for  track  connections  within  town,  village  or  city,  see  Switch 

Connections,  13. 

TRACK  CONNECTIONS. 

See  Connecting  Carriers;  Street  Railways;  Switch  Connections. 

TRACK  DEPRESSION. 

Track   depression   ordered   to   eliminate   dangerous   grade   crossings   in 
Milwaukee,  see  Railroads,  54. 

TRACK  ELEVATION. 

Track  elevation  ordered  to  eliminate  dangerous  grade  crossings  in  Mil- 
waukee, see  Railroads,  54. 

TRACKS. 

Right  of  common  carriers  to  designate  purpose  for  which  their  tracks  shall 
be  used,  see  Railroads,  101. 

TRAFFIC. 

Interchange  of,  see  Connecting  Carriers;  Railroads;  Switch  Con- 
nections; Train  Service.  > 

TRAFFIC  CONDITIONS. 

As  a  factor  in  fixing  minimum  weights,  see  Weights,  9. 
As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
156-158. 
rates  for  street  railways,  see  Rates — Street  Railway,  11-12. 
rates  for  telephone  utilities,  see  Rates — Telephone,  35-36. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  196. 

TRAFFIC  DIVERSITY  FACTOR. 

Traffic  diversity  factor  as  matter  considered  in  determining  adequacy  of 
service  for  street  railways,  see  Street  Railways,  28. 


470  Traffic  Officers 


TRAFFIC  OFFICERS. 

Traffic  officers  to  improve  service  of  street  railways,  see  Street  Railways, 
47. 

TRAIN  CONNECTIONS. 

See  Train  Service,  8,  14. 

TRAIN  MILEAGE. 

Revenue  train  mileage  as  basis  for  apportionment  of  operating  expenses 
of  railroad  between  intrastate  and  interstate  traffic,  see  Accounting 
132. 

TRAIN  SCHEDULES. 

See  also  Train  Service. 

Car  schedules  for  street  railways,  see  Street  Railways,  43-44. 
Adjustment  of  train  schedules  to  assure  connections  between  branch 

and  main  line,  see  Train  Service,  14-16. 
Adjustment  of  train  schedules  between  connecting  carriers  to  provide 

for  interchange  of  traffic,  see  Train  Service,  8. 

Adjustment  of  train  schedules. 

1.  Train  schedules  should  be  so  arranged  as  to  afford  the  best  accom- 
modations to  the  greater  number  of  people.  Jones  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  615. 

2.  In  determining  a  question  as  to  the  adjustment  of  train  schedules 
not  only  must  the  numbers  in  each  case  be  considered,  but  the  extent  of 
the  inconvenience  which  would  be  caused  to  some  must  be  weighed  against 
the  benefit  to  be  derived  by  others.  In  re  Invest.  Dodgeville  Branch  of 
the  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  572,  578. 

3.  Train  schedules  must  be  arranged  for  the  convenience  of  the 
patrons  of  the  entire  line  taken  as  a  whole,  even  though  in  serving  the 
larger  purpose  the  schedules  work  some  hardship  on  a  few  communities 
and  individuals.  Van  Epps  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C. 
54,  58;  In  re  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  74,  81;  Hume  et  at.  v.  C. 
M.  cfc  67.  P.  i?.  Co.,  1913, 13  R.  C.  80, 83. 

4.  While  the  financial  results  of  the  operation  of  the  line  under 
consideration  do  not  justify  an  order  requiring  the  operation  of  additional 
trains,  the  public  is  entitled  to  a  certain  minimum  of  service  irrespective 
of  direct  financial  results.  Leonard  et  al.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G. 
724. 

Interference  with  schedules  of  interstate  trains. 

5.  The  objection  that  the  trains  in  question  are  interstate,  and 
therefore  not  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Gommission,  is  not  tenable. 
This  question  is  fully  discussed  in  the  case  of  Farmer  v.  Duluth  S.  S.  Sc 
A.  R.  Co.,  1  R.  G.  316;  Sager  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  660, 
661. 


Train  Service  471 


6.  The  Commission  has  repeatedly  held  that  where  the  local  trafRc  is 
reasonably  adequate  under  all  the  circumstances  in  the  case,  it  will  make 
no  order  interfering  with  the  schedule  or  rate  of  speed  of  interstate  trains 
operated  primarily  for  the  benefit  of  the  through  traffic.  Barber  v.  C. 
St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  4  R.  G.  238,  242. 

Maintenance  of  published  schedule. 

7.  Trains  should  be  run  on  some  definite  schedule.  Patrons  have  a 
right  to  know  when  they  may  expect  to  go  and  come,  barring  unusual 
contingencies.  "Unusual  contingencies"  are  not  daily  occurrences. 
Loijal  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  G.  720,  723. 

8.  Barring  circumstances  absolutely  beyond  its  control,  a  railroad 
should  substantially  maintain  its  published  passenger  schedule,  whether 
on  branch  or  main  line.  Some  allowance  may  be  made  for  a  mixed  train, 
but  where  it  is  the  only  train  affording  service  in  a  direction  and  at  a  time 
at  which  traffic  normally  moves,  as  in  the  present  case,  the  management 
should  take  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  to  maintain  the  estab- 
lished schedule.  In  re  Invest.  Dodgevillc  Branch  of  the  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  572,  577. 

Making  of  train  schedules. 

9.  The  Commission  has  on  several  occasions  held  that  the  making 
of  train  schedules,  together  with  the  details  of  operation,  are  matters 
primarily  within  the  judgment  and  discretion  of  the  railway  company. 
Only  in  cases  of  clear  necessity  has  the  Commission  intervened  in  matters 
of  this  kind,  and  then  somewhat  reluctantly.  It  is  practically  impossible 
for  the  Commission  to  assume  responsibility  for  the  many  details  con- 
nected with  the  operation  of  trains.  The  law,  in  our  judgment,  does  not 
contemplate  this  and  we  do  not  believe  that  in  experience  it  would  prove 
to  be  practicable.  Barber  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
238,  242;  Barker  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  751,  755. 

Reparation  for  expenses  incurred  on  account  of  failure  of  carrier 
to  keep  schedule  for  connections. 

10.  The  Commission  has  no  authority  under  the  law  to  order  re- 
spondent to  make  reparation  for  expenses  incurred  by  failure  to  make 
connections.     Burrill  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  319. 

TRAIN  SERVICE. 

See   also    Connecting    Carriers;    Station   Facilities;    Switch    Con- 
nections; Train  Schedules;  Transit  Privileges. 

Discrimination  in  train  service,  see  Discrimination,  49-85. 
Interstate  trains,  jurisdiction  of  Commission  over,  see  Railroad  Com- 
mission, 58-60. 
Village  deprived  of  train  service  by  change  in  line,  see  Railroads,  73. 


ADEQUACY  OF  TRAIN   SERVICE. 

a.  In  generaL  c.   Passenger  service. 

b.  Freight  service. 


472 Train  Service. — Adequacy  of 

I.  ADEQUACY  OF  TRAIN  SERVICE. 

a.   IN   GENERAL. 

Branch  line  service. 

1.  Every  part  of  a  railroad  system  cannot  be  expected  to  be  profitable. 
There  are  many  short  lines  acting  as  feeders  to  main  lines,  which  could  not 
be  operated  independently  of  the  main  lines.  Therefore,  in  determining 
the  reasonableness  of  any  branch  line  service,  the  relation  of  the  branch 
line  to  the  system  as  a  whole,  the  needs  of  the  public  tributary  to  the 
branch,  the  character  and  volume  of  traffic,  both  present  and  prospective, 
the  cost  of  operation  and  its  effect  upon  the  revenues  of  the  entire  system, 
must  be  considered,  and  every  factor  given  such  weight  as  in  the  light  of  all 
the  circumstances  the  situation  warrants.  Nelson  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co., 
1912,  8  R.  C.  685,  686;  Webster  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W,  R.  Co.,  1912, 10  R.  C.  500, 
508;  In  re  Invest.  Dodgeville  Branch  of  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  572,  577, 

2.  Stations  on  branch  lines  cannot,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
obtain  or  reasonably  demand  equal  service  with  stations  upon  main  lines, 
though  the  former  station  may  be  more  important  than  the  latter; 
nevertheless,  there  is  a  minimum  of  service  that  must  be  rendered  on 
every  line,  less  than  which  would  be  a  breach  of  public  duty  on  the  part 
of  the  carrier.     Nelson  etal.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  G.  685^  687. 

3.  The  passenger  business  on  a  branch  line  cannot  always  be  expected 
to  be  entirely  self-supporting.  Where  this  business  is  conducted  in 
connection  with  a  profitable  freight  business  on  the  same  trains,  the 
combined  earnings  must  be  considered  in  determining  the  adequacy  of 
the  service.     Werner  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 14  R.  C.  573. 

Comparative  conditions. 

4.  If  a  railway  company  furnishes  reasonably  adequate  service  to  a 
community  it  cannot  be  required  to  furnish  additional  service  to  that 
community  merely  because  it  furnishes  more  than  adequate  service  to 
communities  of  similar  or  less  importance.  Anderton  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  So 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  247,  250. 

Competition  between  shippers. 

5.  We  do  not  think  it  could  be  successfully  maintained  that  any 
service,  whether  usual  or  not,  could  be  declared  adequate  which  did  not, 
for  instance,  admit  of  the  transportation  of  certain  articles  of  commerce 
in  general  use  upon  terms  which  would  enable  the  manufacturer  or  shipper 
to  sell  in  the  markets  in  competition  with  others,  who,  because  of  their 
great  capital,  were  able  to  supply  their  own  facilities  for  reaching  the 
markets,  or  for  other  reasons  made  no  use  of  the  equipment  of  the  railway 
companies  for  such  purpose.  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  232,  246. 

Operation  of  trains. 

6.  Every  railway  company  is  entitled  to  operate  its  trains  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  compete  upon  the  most  favorable  terms,  consistent  with  the 
test  of  reasonably  adequate  service  at  all  points  served  by  it.     Tate  v. 


Train  Service. — Adequacy  of  473 


C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  348,  354;  Village  of  Maiden  Rock  v. 
C.  B.  Sz  Q.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  311,  316. 

Regularity  of  schedule. 

7.  One  of  the  prime  functions  of  a  common  carrier  is  to  transport 
passengers  and  freight  with  regularity.  We  do  not  regard  it  just  to 
compel  the  respondent  company  to  operate  all  of  its  trains  on  a  published 
train  schedule,  but  we  are  inclined  toward  the  belief  that  a  fair  considera- 
tion of  the  interests  of  the  patrons  of  the  line  requires  the  operation  of 
some  trains  oil  regular  schedules.  Streveler  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  831,  843. 

b.   FREIGHT  SERVICE. 

Connections  at  transfer  points. 

8.  Connections  to  facilitate  movements  of  freight.  Village  of  Abbots- 
ford  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  619;  Rogers  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  45;  In  re  Train  Service  Brodhead  New 
Glarus  Branch  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  389;  John  Hoffman  & 
Sons  Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  530;  1913, 13  R.  C.  322. 

Milk  train. 

9.  Question  of  adequacy  of  facilities  for  milk  shipments  passed  upon. 
Corey  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  191;  Kuenzli  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  690;  Milwaukee  Milk  &  C.  Shippers 
of  Calhoun  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  638. 

Stopping  of  trains. 

10.  Stopping  of  trains  ordered  to  receive  and  discharge  freight. 
Pullen  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  27;  Loehr  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  34. 

Trainload  service. 

11.  Trainload  rates  are  at  best  a  form  of  discrimination  in  favor  of 
the  large  shipper  and  against  the  small  shipper.  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  <fc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  281;  Connor  Lbr.  &  Land  Co.  v. 
Laona  ct  N.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  761,  767. 

c.    PASSENGER    SERVICE. 

Additional  trains. 

12.  Question  of  operation  of  additional  trains  passed  upon.  Loyal 
Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  720;  Leonard  et  al.  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  724;  2  R.  C.  1;  Birkett  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  61;  Streveler  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  78; 
Leonard  et  al.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  355;  Village  of  Curtiss  v.  M. 
St.  P.  &  5.  S.  M.  i?.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  655;  Nelson  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  C.  764;  Donald  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  320;  Nelson 
et  al.  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  685;  Webster  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1912,  10  R.  C.  500;  In  re  Invest.  L.  S.  Div.  of  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  C.  590;  Overmeyer  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  569; 


474 Train  Service. — Adequacy  of 

Roethe  v.  M.  P.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  643;  In  re  C.  &  N.  W.  Pas- 
senger Serv.  Janesville-Fond  du  Lac,  1913,  12  R.  C.  74;  Hume  et  al.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R,  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  80;  Werner  et  al.  u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  573;  Sieberns  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sz  0.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  775;  Schmitt  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  758. 

c.    PASSENGER    SERVICE. — Continued 

Adjustment  of  schedules. 

13.  Question  of  adjustment  of  schedules  passed  upon.  Frost  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  R.  C.  92;  Barker  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  G.  751. 

Connections  at  junction  points. 

14.  The  making  of  proper  train  connections  between  trains  on  the 
same  railway  system  as  well  as  between  trains  on  competing  railway 
systems,  at  junction  points,  is  in  the  interest  of  the  general  trafTic,  a  matter 
of  public  convenience  and  comfort  and  the  performance  of  a  duty  which 
public  carriers  owe  to  the  public.  Rosen  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1907,  1  R.  C.  512,  520. 

15.  Establishment  of  connection  of  passenger  trains  at  junction 
points  ordered.  Rosen  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &:  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1907,  1  R.  C. 
512;  Barber  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  cfc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  238;  Knapp  v. 
I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  176;  Titus  v.  C.  M.&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  534;  Lentz  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  oS\;  Rogers 
V.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  45;  In  re  Invest.  Dodgeville  Branch 
of  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  572;  Watrud  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C. 
449;  Nolan  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  el  al.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  588. 

16.  Petition  for  connection  dismissed.  Jones  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R. 
Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  615;  Kissinger  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  iSc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 

1914,  13  R.  C.  790. 

Excursion  train. 

17.  The  reason  for  the  absence  of  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  is 
that  excursion  train  service  is  a  special  form  of  service,  which  the  railroad 
is  not  compelled  to  furnish  and  which,  if  it  does  furnish,  is  w^holly  within 
its  discretion  as  to  time  and  extent  of  service,  subject  only  to  the 
general  police  power  of  the  state  with  respect  to  public  health,  safety,  or 
equal  rights.  When  the  respondent  operated  the  train  beyond  Winne- 
bijou,  and  failed  to  stop,  the  Commission's  jurisdiction  arose  in  its 
authority  under  the  statute  to  prevent  discrimination,  but  as  the  re- 
spondent now  sees  fit  to  furnish  the  special  service  only  as  far  as 
Lake  Nebagamon,  the  Commission  cannot  intervene  to  compel  it  to  be 
furnished  to  more  distant  stations.     Hughson  et  al.  v.  D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co., 

1915,  15  R.  C.  599. 

Motor  car  service. 

18.  Adequacy  of  motor  car  service  passed  upon.  Wright  v.  I.  C.  R. 
Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  279;  Godard  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  578. 

Private  cars,  hauling  of. 

19.  The  respondent  is  not  a  common  carrier  of  private  cars.  The 
past  practice  or  custom  of  the  respondent  of  carrying  private  cars  does 


Train  Service. — Adequacy  of 475 

not  have  the  force  of  law,  compelling  it  to  do  so  in  the  future,  which 
would,  in  effect,  make  it  a  common  carrier  of  private  cars.  Hall  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  118. 

Service  of  local  stations  by  through  interstate  trains. 

20.  Through  interstate  trains  engaged  in  conveying  persons  long 
distances  at  a  rapid  speed  in  competition  with  similar  trains  on  other 
roads,  are  not  designed  to  perform  local  service  between  stations,  and 
ought  not,  in  justice  to  the  railway  company  or  to  the  traveling  public, 
to  be  ever  required  to  do  so  except  in  case  of  imperative  necessity.  Dyer 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  621,  626;  Village  of  Maiden  Rock  v. 
C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  311,  316. 

21.  Und^r  certain  circumstances  a  railroad  commission,  duly  em- 
powered by  statute,  m£iy  compel  a  railway  company  to  stop  interstate 
trains  carrying  United  States  mail.  The  right  to  exercise  the  power 
would  seem  to  depend  upon  a  question  of  fact  in  every  instance,  and  the 
essential  fact  to  be  determined  is  whether  or  not  the  locality  in  question 
is  adequately  served  by  other  trains.  Farmer  v.  D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co., 
1907, 1  R.  C.  316,  321;  Schmidt  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  Ti.  C.  121,  125. 

Shuttle  train. 

22.  The  operation  of  passenger  trains  through  freight  terminals  and 
over  lines  used  exclusively  for  freight  service  is  unusually  hazardous. 
While  it  might  be  possible  that  with  careful  supervision  passengers  could 
be  transported  to  the  fair  grounds  over  the  proposed  route,  the  danger 
would  be  greater  than  under  usual  methods  of  operation,  and  the  saving 
of  five  minutes  or  even  a  half-hour  in  reaching  the  fair  would  not  be  a  suffi- 
cient justification  for  subjecting  passengers  to  unusual  danger.  Wis. 
Si.  Brd.  of  Agriculture  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  110. 

Sleeping  car  service. 

23.  To  grant  the  relief  sought  would  necessitate  the  regulation  of 
interstate  passenger  service,  which  is  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Com- 
mission, except  where  such  regulation  is  necessary  for  adequate  intrastate 
service,  which  is  not  the  case  in  the  present  proceedings.  Fond  du  Lac 
Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  606. 

Stopping  of  trains. 

24.  To  permit  an  agent  of  the  company  to  determine,  in  his  dis- 
cretion, the  exigency  requiring  a  stop  in  any  particular  case,  seems 
indefensible.  The  matter  should  not  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  any  one 
or  more  persons  but  should  be  governed  by  a  regulation  of  general  appli- 
cation, otherwise  unjust  discrimination  will  of  necessity  occur.  Laun  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  5,  11. 

25.  It  would  seem  clearly  within  the  decisions  of  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States  a  burden  upon  interstate  commerce  and  therefore 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commission  to  compel  interstate  trains  to 
stop  at  stations  where  the  local  service  is  already  reasonably  adequate  and 
where  the  size  of  such  stations  does  not  warrant  the  stopping  of  such 
trains.     Adams  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  506. 


476  Train  Service. — Adcquaci]  of 

c.    PASSENGER    SERVICE.— Continued 

Stopping  of  trains. 

26.  Petitions  for  stopping  of  trains  at  stations  dismissed.  Liberty  v- 
W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  139;  McFarland  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1906, 

1  R.  C.  248;  Farmer  v.  D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  316;  Bushnell  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  532;  Delbridge  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1907,  2  R.  C.  32;  Tate  v.  C.  B.  cfc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  348;  Dyer  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  621;  Burkholder  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908, 

2  R.  C.  765;  Kemp  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  <Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  350;  Fordice  et  al. 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  602;  Schmidt  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  C.  121;  Village  of  Maiden  Rock  v.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  311; 
Sparlin  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  467;  Strasburg  u. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  504;  Wilding  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R. 
Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  513;  Sandquist  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  C.  490;  Parkhill  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  153; 
Gilbertson  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  604;  Laursen  et  al.  v. 
M.  St.  P.  &  5.  5.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  627;  Van  Epps  v.  M.  St.  P. 
&  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  54;  Thorson  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12 
R.  C.  363;  Hayden  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  390; 
Village  of  Unity  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  430;  Gan- 
tenbein  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  525;  Anderton  et  al.  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  247;  Adams  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co., 
1914, 14  R.  C.  506;  Abrams  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  780;  Senty  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  15  R.  G. 
155;  Hariu  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  502. 

27.  Stopping  of  trains  at  stations  ordered.  Pullen  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co., 
1906,  1  R.  C.  27;  Loehr  u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  34; 
Pullen  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  60;  Guildner  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1906,  1  R.  C.  102;  Sager  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  660; 
Dennis  v.  K.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  115;  Olson  et  al.  v.  S.  M.  & 
P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  262;  Laun  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
6  R.  C.  5;  Schlosstein  v.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  242;  City  of 
Menomonie  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  478;  Travelers' 
Prot.  Assn.  of  America  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  333;  Feuling 
V.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  116;  Travelers'  Prot.  Assn.  of  America 
V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  439;  Anderton  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  506;  Morris  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  560;  Hughson  v.  D.  S.  S.  Sc  A.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  406; 
Callen  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  732;  Boardman  v. 
M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  462;  Callen  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  581;  Bissell  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15 
R.  G.  435;  Keup  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  459. 

Sunday  train  service. 

28.  The  supreme  court  of  this  state  has  laid  down  the  rule  that  a 
railway  company  is  under  no  obhgation  to  carry  passengers  on  Sundays 
because  of  the  inhibition  of  the  statute  (sec.  4595)  {Walsh  v.  C.  M.  Sc 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1877,  42  Wis.  23).  Whatever  may  be  our  views  as  to  the 
soundness  or  wisdom  of  the  poHcy  thus  declared,  it  is  controUing  in  effect 
in  the  case  before  us.     Until  the  legislature  expressly  excepts  railroad 


Trains  477 

■  -. » ■— I  I .1        .        '  ^  II      ■^-  .  —  -11-  . ■■  ■  — —  ..-—.I. 

companies  from  the  operation  of  such  statute,  or  the  supreme  court  re- 
cedes from  its  former  position,  the  Commission  is  powerless  to  compel 
the  running  of  railway  trains  on  Sundays  for  the  convenience  of  the 
public.  Seymour  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8 
R.  C.  524. 

29.  The  failure  of  the  respondent  to  stop  its  Sunday  excursion  train 
at  Winnibijou,  while  making  stops  at  other  stations  of  equal  or  less  im- 
portance, is  unjustly  discriminatory.  The  respondent  is  therefore  ordered 
to  arrange  the  future  schedule  of  its  summer  Sunday  excursion  train 
between  Superior  and  Bibon  to  provide  a  stop  at  Winnibijou.  Hughson  v. 
D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  406. 

30.  The  Sunday  passenger  train  service  furnished  by  respondent  be- 
tween Madison  and  Prairie  du  Chien  is  inadequate.  The  operation  of  a 
passenger  train  in  each  direction  between  the  points  in  question  is  neces- 
sary. Respondent  ordered  to  operate  a  Sunday  passenger  train  in  each 
direction  between  Prairie  du  Chien  and  Madison,  scheduled  to  arrive  at 
Madison  not  later  than  10:30  a.  m.  and  to  leave  not  earlier  than  2:30 
p.  m.    Blaine  p.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  652. 

Test  of  adequacy. 

31.  The  number  of  passengers  to  be  accommodated  is  one  of  the  most 
significant  facts  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  question  of  what 
constitutes  reasonably  adequate  passenger  service,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  number  of  passengers  to  be  accommodated  is  the  sole  factor.  A 
railway  company,  by  virtue  of  its  duty  as  a  common  carrier,  must  provide 
whatever  may  be  reasonably  adequate  service  at  every  point  served  by 
it.  The  minimum  of  the  service  thus  to  be  provided  is  practically  inde- 
pendent of  the  exact  number  of  passengers  at  a  particular  station  or  on  a 
particular  division.  This  minimum  service  must  be  provided  irrespective 
of  the  number  of  passengers  or  the  railway  company  must  surrender  its 
rights  and  functions  as  a  common  carrier.  Bushnell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  532,  536. 

32.  The  adequacy  of  passenger  train  service  cannot  be  determined 
from  the  point  of  view  of  quantity  alone.  It  is  essential  that  a  proper 
number  of  trains  be  stopped  at  a  station,  but  it  is  more  important  that 
the  schedule  be  such  as  to  render  travel  reasonably  convenient.  An  excess 
of  trains,  operated  at  inconvenient  hours,  may  result  in  a  service  which  is 
entirely  inadequate  as  to  quality.  Callen  et  at.  v.  C.  M.  &:  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  C.  581,  584. 

TRAINLOAD  RATES. 

See  Rates — Railroad,  322. 

TRAINS. 

Limitation  of  speed  of  trains,  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see 
Railroads,  31. 

Power  of  state  to  compel  the  stopping  of  interstate  trains,  see  Railroad 
Commission,  54,  58-60. 

Stopping  of  trains  at  stations  of  equal  or  less  importance  than  a  station 
at  which  they^do  not  stop  not  unjust^discrimination,  see  Discrim- 
ination, 50,  63. 


478     Trains  . 

Stopping  of  trains  for  protection  of  railroad  crossings,  see  Railroads,  34. 
Stopping  of  trains  to  render  adequate  train  service,  see  Train  Service, 

10,  24-27. 
Stopping  of  interstate  trains,  when  an  interference  with  interstate  com 

merce,  see  Train  Service,  25. 

TRANSFER  COMPANIES. 

Conduct  of  railroad  company  toward  transfer  companies,  see  Discrim- 
ination, 105. 

TRANSFER  CONNECTIONS. 

Connection  of  trains  at  transfer  points,  see  Train  Service,  8,  14-16. 
Street  cars  ordered  to  wait  for  other  cars  to  obviate  unreasonable  delay 

and  hardship  to  passengers  desiring  to  make  a  transfer,  see  Street 

Railways,  48. 

TRANSFERRING  CARS. 

Transferring  or  moving  cars  from  one  line  to  another,  see  Switch  Con- 
nections, 27. 

TRANSFER  OF  FREIGHT. 

See  Connecting  Carriers;     Switch  Connections. 

TRANSFERS. 

Double  transfers  on  street  railways,  see  Rates — Street  Railway,  22-23. 
Interchange  of  transfers  between  interurban  and  street  railway,  recom- 
mendation for,  see  Interurban  Railways,  18. 

TRANSFORMERS. 

Duty  of  electric  utility  to  provide  suitable  transformers  and  lightning 
arresters,  see  Electric  Utilities,  48. 

TRANSIT  PRIVILEGES. 

Stoppage  in  transit  does  not  affect  interstate  character  of  shipments,  see 
Transportation,  3. 


I.      IN   GENERAL.  II.      CHARGES  FOR  PRIVILEGE. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

Conditions  under  which  granted. 

1.  Milling  in  transit  privileges  are  generally  recognized  and  may  result 
in  lower  cost  of  production  as  distinguished  from  marketing  the  products, 
but  they  must  be  granted  without  unjust  discrimination.    As  to  whether  it 


Transit  Privileges. — In  general  479 

is  a  discrimination  to  grant  transit  privileges  to  some  producers  and  not 
to  others  among  those  who  are  using  logs  of  Hke  kinds  as  raw  material, 
although  the  products  turned  out  are  different,  is  a  question  that  depends 
upon  the  facts  in  each  particular  case.  In  re  Rates  on  Pulp  Wood,  1908, 
2  R.  C.  168,  222. 

2.  This  Commission  has  permitted  a  lower  rate  to  he  made  upon 
raw  material,  where  the  product  manufactured  from  such  material  was 
to  be  shipped  out  over  the  line  of  road  hauling  such  raw  material  and  the 
rates  on  the  raw  material  plus  the  rate  on  the  manufactured  product 
amounted  to  a  fair  compensation  for  the  entire  haulage  service.  In  re 
AppL  C.  St.  P.  M.  cfc  0.  R.  Co.,  1905,  1  R.  C.  16.  We  also  held  that  car- 
riers might  make  lower  commodity  rates  for  the  shipment  of  building 
material  and  machinery  to  be  employed  in  the  erection  and  first  operation 
of  factories  built  at  points  on  their  lines,  than  to  dealers  in  such  commodi- 
ties. In  re  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  210.  Although  grave  doubts  were 
and  still  are  maintained  regarding  the  universal  application  of  the  principle 
involved  in  these  cases,  we  believe  it  was  rightfully  held  that  such  principle 
applied  under  the  concrete  circumstances  of  these  cases.  Valvoline  Oil 
Co.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  232,  242-243. 

3.  Whether  any  particular  traffic  should  be  accorded  a  transit  privilege 
of  the  character  sought  in  this  case,  is  not  to  be  determined  by  considera- 
tions of  convenience  solely.  The  cost  of  carriage,  the  necessities  of  the 
buyer  as  well  as  those  of  the  shipper  and  carrier,  the  character  of  the  com- 
modity and,  perhaps,  the  purpose  for  which  used,  the  method  of  handling 
the  same,  the  advantage  or  disadvantage  of  the  shipper  respecting  the 
markets,  and  other  conditions  that  may  arise,  are  all  factors  that  may  be 
legitimately  considered  in  reaching  a  conclusion.  W^hether  a  special 
privilege  should  be  allowed,  becomes  a  question  of  great  importance  in 
each  case  to  the  carrier,  for  the  injustice  that  would  result  to  the  carrier 
from  an  indiscriminate  extension  of  such  privileges  is  obvious.  Only  in 
case  of  overruling  necessity  is  it  justifiable,  in  our  opinion,  to  enforce 
such  a  regulation  in  favor  of  shippers  and  against  the  wishes  of  the  rail- 
way company.  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908,  2  R.  G. 
232,  247.  . 

4.  No  invariable  rule  can  be  laid  down  as  to  what  commodities  or 
under  what  conditions  transit  privileges  are  to  be  accorded.  Because 
commercial  conditions  are  constantly  changing,  each  case  arising  must  be 
considered  separately  and  in  the  light  of  its  own  facts,  and  the  question 
of  the  application  of  the  principle  thereto  must  be  determined  under  the 
existing  circumstances.  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  364,  366-367. 

Granting  of  privilege — Benefit  to  public,  to  carrier,  and  to  shipper. 

5.  In  the  past  carriers  have  found  it  not  only  beneficial  to  shippers, 
dealers  and  consumers  generally,  but  to  their  own  advantage  to  establish 
special  transit  privileges  wherever  and  whenever  the  commercial  conditions 
required  them.  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.  C.  c^  A^.  W.  R.  Co.'et  al,  1909,  3  R.  C. 
364,  367. 

6.  Stoppage  in  transit  rules  tend  to  increase  the  proportion  of  the 
carload  traffic  as  well  as  the  loading  per  car.    They  also  operate  as  offsets 


480 Transit  Privileges. — In  general - 

to  high  minimum  weight  requirements  and  the  great  differences  between 
carload  and  less  than  carload  rates.  It  is,  of  course,  a  fact  that  the  extra 
cost  of  stopping  cars  tends  to  reduce  the  importance  of  this  privilege  to 
the  shippers.  But  even  when  reasonable  charges  are  allowed  for  such 
cost,  this  privilege  would  still  seem  to  be  of  much  value  to  all  concerned. 
In  re  Rates  on  Agricultural  Implements,  1913,  11  R.  C.  508,  533. 

Granting  of  privilege — Does  not  affect  rates  on  less  than  caroad 
lots. 

7.  It  is  probable  that  in  some  instances,  and  in  respect  to  some  com- 
modities, the  allowance  of  a  transit  privilege  to  partly  unload  a  carload 
of  such  commodities  at  one  or  more  points,  in  transit  may  affect  the 
number  and  volume  of  less  than  carload  shipments  of  the  same,  but  it 
would  not  operate  to  modify  or  change  the  rate  on  L.  C.  L.  shipments. 
The  view  that  the  granting  of  transit  privileges  operates  to  modify  rates 
involves  a  confusion  of  ideas.  It  confounds  the  service  with  the  rate  or 
charge  covering  the  service.  The  order  requiring  the  allowance  of  transit 
privileges  imposes  a  service,  and  suggests  a  specific  charge  for  the  same, 
but  does  not,  in  law  or  in  fact,  modify  or  alter  any  established  rate. 
Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R  Co.  et  al,  1909,  3  R.  C.  364,  367-368. 

Legality  of  privileges. 

8.  The  legality  of  practices  corresponding  to  that  of  "milling  in 
transit"  has  been  before  the  courts  for  determination.  The  pivotal  ques- 
tion in  each  case  was  whether  such  practices  did  not  constitute  unlawful 
discriminations  between  different  shippers.  The  courts  are  not  all  of  the 
same  opinion,  some  sustaining  the  principle  involved  and  others  rejecting 
it.  This  Commission  has  permitted  a  lower  rate  to  be  made  upon  raw 
material  where  the  product  manufactured  from  such  material  was  to  be 
shipped  out  over  the  line  of  road  hauling  such  raw  material  and  the  rates 
on  the  raw  material  plus  the  rate  on  the  manufactured  product  amounted 
to  a  fair  compensation  for  the  entire  haulage  service.  In  re  Appl.  C.  St. 
P.M.Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1905,  1  R.  C.  16.  This  Commission  has  also  held  that 
carriers  might  make  lower  commodity  rates  for  the  shipment  of  building 
material  and  machinery  to  be  employed  in  the  erection  and  first  operation 
of  factories  built  at  points  on  their  lines,  than  to  dealers  in  such  commodi- 
ties. In  re  Wis.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  210.  Although  grave  doubts  were 
and  still  are  maintained  regarding  the  universal  application  of  the  principle 
involved  in  these  cases,  we  believe  it  was  rightfully  held  that  such  principle 
applied  under  the  concrete  circumstances  of  these  cases.  Valvoline  Oil 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  232,  242-243. 

9.  Transit  privileges,  such  as  those  in  question  here,  are  also  provided 
for  by  and  come  within  the  laws.  Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1908,  3  R.  C.  1,  4. 

Number  of  stops. 

10.  We  are  not  convinced  from  our  investigation  of  the  matter  that 
more  than  one  stop  in  transit  for  th^  purpose  of  partly  unloading  is  required 
to  render  the  service  adequate  in  respect  to  the  trafiic  here  under  considera- 
tion, and,  therefore,  but  one  stop  will  be  ordered.  The  usual  and  custom- 
ary charge  for  such  privilege  is  five  dollars,  which  seems  to  us  a  reasonable 


Transmission  and  Transformation  Expenses  481 


compensation  for  the  additional  service  required.     Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1908,  2  R.  C.  232,  248.. 

Original  shipment  separated  into  two  or  more  shipments. 

11.  Where  a  shipment  of  grain  is  entitled  to  transit  privileges  and 
where  the  shipment  is  separated  at  the  transit  point  into  two  or  more 
shipments,  each  destined  to  points  taking  different  rates  from  point  of 
origin  to  point  of  final  destination,  the  application  of  different  rates  to  the 
shipment  involved  is  not  authorized  in  the  present  tariffs.  Blodgett  Milling 
Co.u.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  771,  774. 

Rate  adjustments  hased  upon  transit  privileges. 

12.  A  considerable  proportion  of  the  rate  adjustments  in  this  state 
are  based  upon  stoppages  in  transit,  that  is,  such  privileges  are  granted 
on  many  of  the  leading  commodities  of  commerce.  Cochrane  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  1,  29. 

II.  CHARGES  FOR  PRIVILEGE. 

Charges  on  basis  of  additional  pay  for  additional  services. 

13.  Transit  privileges  are  merely'  auxiliary  services,  which  are  per- 
formed by  the  carrier  in  connection  with  the  haulage  services  covered 
by  the  through  rates,  and  for  which  additional  services  specific  charges 
are  exacted  besides  the  regular  transportation  charges.  Valvoline  Oil 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1909,  3  R.  C.  364,  367-368. 

14.  In  requiring  a  through  shipment  of  a  carload  of  freight  to  be 
stopped  at  one  or  more  points  in  transit  for  the  purpose  of  finishing  loading 
or  of  partly  unloading,  an  increase  of  service  only  is  occasioned,  and  neither 
the  through  rate  applicable  to  the  shipment  or  any  other  rate  is  affected 
thereby.  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1909.  3  R.  C.  364, 
368. 

Customary  charge  for  stop. 

15.  We  are  not  convinced  from  our  investigation  of  the  matter  that 
more  than  one  stop  in  transit  for  the  purpose  of  partly  unloading  is  re- 
quired to  render  the  service  adequate  in  respect  to  the  traffic  here  under 
consideration,  and  therefore  but  one  stop  will  be  ordered.  The  usual 
and  customary  charge  for  such  privilege  is  five  dollars,  which  seems  to  us 
a  reasonable  compensation  for  the  additional  service  required.  Valvoline 
Oil  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1908,  2  R.  C.  232,  248. 

TRANSIT  RATES. 

See  Transit  Privileges. 
Concentration  rate  defined  as  a  transit  rate,  see  Rates — Railroad,  26,  40. 

TRANSMISSION    AND    TRANSFORMATION 

EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  transmission  and  transformation  expenses  in  the  de- 
termination of  unit  costs  for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  28. 

16 


482  Transmission  Lines 


TRANSMISSION  LINES. 

1.  Railroad  Commission  without  authority  to  compel  a  change  in  loca- 
tion of  high  voltage  transmission  lines  when  they  interfere  with  telephone 
lines.  Ebenezer  Tel.  Co.  v.  M.  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  619;  Platte- 
ville  etc.  Tel.  Co.  u.  Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  622. 


TRANSPORTATION. 

IN  GENERAL. 

Definition  of  transportation. 

1.  We  do  not  understand  why  the  switching  of  a  car  for  a  mile  or 
two  miles,  within  the  incorporated  limits  of  the  city  of  Janesville,  is  not  a 
transportation  service  just  as  much  as  the  hauling  of  a  car  for  a  like  distance 
between  two  stations  in  a  regular  freight  train.  By  transportation  we 
mean  the  movement  of  a  commodity  or  an  article  between  two  points 
not  necessarily  railway  stations.  That  this  service  is  performed  by  a  switch- 
ing crew  cannot  change  the  fact  that  the  article  is  transported.  The  service 
may  be  less  expensive  than  if  performed  by  a  regular  train  crew,  but  this 
does  not  change  the  fact  that  the  article  is  carried.  Clark  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  733,  734,  738. 

2.  Congress  has  defined  the  term  "transportation,"  as  used  within 
the  Act  to  Regulate  Interstate  Commerce,  as  including  "cars  and  other 
vehicles,  all  instrumentalities  and  facilities  of  shipment  or  carriage, 
irrespective  of  ownership  or  of  any  contract,  expressed  or  implied,  for  the 
use  thereof,  and  all  services  in  connection  with  the  receipt,  delivery, 
elevation,  transfer  in  transit,  ventilation,  refrigeration  or  icing,  storage, 
and  handling  of  property  transported."  Hoyt  <fc  Bergen  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  532,  533-534. 

WHAT     TRANSPORTATION     IS     INTERSTATE     AND     WHAT 

INTRASTATE. 

V 

Interstate  transportation — Effect  of  stoppage  in  transit. 

3.  In  presenting  claims  for  reparation  upon  both  state  and  interstate 
shipments  to  this  Commission  in  the  present  case,  it  seems  to  have  been 
the  theory  of  the  petitioners  that  as  the  service  in  stopping  the  cars  to 
finish  loading  was  rendered  entirely  within  the  state,  the  charges  exacted 
therefor  were  subject  to  modification  by  this  Commission.-  This  is  an 
erroneous  conception  of  the  character  of  such  service.  When  a  car  was 
partly  loaded  at  the  original  point  of  shipment,  it  was  destined  either  to  a 
point  within  or  without  the  state.  In  the  latter  event,  it  was  an  interstate 
shipment  and  any  transit  privilege  allowed  would  be  a  service  rendered 
in  connection  with  such  transportation.  All  charges  exacted  for  any  serv- 
ice rendered  in  connection  therewith  are  subject  to  the  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  interstate  commerce  commission.  Hoyt  <&  Bergen  v.  C.  Sc  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  8  R.  C.  532,  533-534. 


Transportation. — What  is  interstate  and  what  intrastate  483 

Switching  service — -Force  of  the  original  bill  of  lading  in  determi- 
nation of  the  character  of  the  transportation  service. 

4.  In  determining  the  intrastate  or  interstate  character  of  the  ship- 
ments in  question  the  force  of  the  original  bill  of  lading  is  important,  al- 
though the  time  when  and  the  place  where  the  original  bill  of  lading  is 
transferred  by  the  consignee  to  another  party  does  not  appear  to  us  to  be 
decisive.  This  transfer  appears  to  us  to  be  more  closely  associated  with 
questions  of  liability  for  loss  and  damage.  Duluth-Superior  Millg.  Co. 
et  at.  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  70,  71-72. 

Ownership  of  commodity  switched  immate;rial  in  determi- 
nation of  the  character  of  the  transportation  service. 

5.  The  particular  ownership  of  the  grain  at  one  point  or  at  a  specific 
time  is  immaterial  in  ihe  determination  of  the  character  of  the  transporta- 
tion with  respect  to  its  being  interstate  or  intrastate.  It  follows  that  ques- 
tions of  liability  in  case  of  loss  or  damage  are  immaterial  in  determining 
the  one  point  at  issue.  Duluth-Superior  Millg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co., 
1910,  6  R.  C.  70,  71. 


Question  of  absorption  of  charges  immaterial  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  character  of  the  transportation  service. 

6.  It  would  doubtless  be  difficult  to  maintain  that  grain  shipped  from 
competitive  points  and  ultimately  unloaded  at  one  of  the  elevators  of  the 
petitioners  herein  was  subject  to  federal  statutes,  and  that  grain  shipped 
from  non-competitive  points  to  the  same  elevator  was  subject  to  the 
statutes  of  the  state  of  Wisconsin,  simply  because  in  the  former  case  the 
common  carrier  at  the  point  of  origin  absorbed  the  final  switching  charges 
and  in  the  other  case  it  did  not.  It  is  conceivable  that  the  Soo  Railway 
Company  might  hire  teams  for  the  conveyance  of  grain  from  its  cars  to 
petitioners'  elevators  and  pay  the  cost  of  this  transfer.  The  amounts  thus 
paid  to  the  owners  of  the  teams  would  correspond  to  the  switching  charges 
which  the  Soo  absorbs  under  the  conditions  given.  If  the  absorption  of 
the  charges  is  the  decisive  factor,  then  the  shipment  of  grain  remains  inter- 
state to  petitioners'  elevators,  and  such  interstate  transportation  includes 
the  transfer  by  team.  Upon  this  hypothesis  the  interstate  commerce 
commission  would  have  jurisdiction  over  the  teams  doing  this  work.  The 
untenability  of  this  position  is  shown  by  one  of  the  cases  cited:  New 
York  ex  rel.  Penn.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  1904,  192  U.  S.  21.  Duluth-Superior 
Millg.  Co.  et  al.,  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  70,  72. 

Switching  of  commodities  brought  from  points  outside  of  the 

state  when  the  switching  is  not  done  under  the  original  con- 
tract of  transportation  but  is  a  distinct  movement  governed 
by  the  local  switching  tariff. 

7.  Switching  is  a  distinct  and  separate  movement,  governed  by  local 
switching  tariff  which  is  applicable  to  all  switching  movements,  irrespective 
of  the  points  of  origin  or  of  the  particular  carrier  or  carriers  participating 
in  the  initial  interstate  haul.  It  is  supplementary  to  the  interstate  trans- 
portation rather  than  a  part  of  it,  and  therefore  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  this  Commission.  Duluth-Superior  Millg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co., 
1910,  6  R.  C.  70,  72-73;  1911,  7  R.  C.  459,  461. 


484    Transportation. — What  is  interstate  and  what  intrastate 

Transportation  of  traffic  within  state  when  shipped  from  point 
without  state. 

8.  Where  a  shipment  is  made  from  without  the  state  and  is  deUvered 
to  the  shipper  or  his  consignee,  at  a  point  within  the  state,  the  interstate 
character  of  the  shipment  ceases.  Any  further  movement  of  the  car  within 
the  state,  upon  a  new  biUing,  is  purely  an  intrastate  transportation  and 
cannot  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  prior  interstate  movement  with  the 
effect  of  giving  it  an  interstate  character.  Wis.  Coal  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  339,  341. 

TRANSPOSITIONS. 

Making  of   transpositions  for  purpose  of  eliminating  cross-talk  on  tele- 
phone lines,  see  Telephone  Utilities,  45. 

TRIMMINGS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  trimmings  and  other  waste  lumber  products, 
see  Rates — Railroad,  270. 

TRUCKS. 

Farm  and  logging  trucks,  classification  under  agricultural  implements, 
see  Rates — Railroad,  200. 

TRUNK  LINE  RULES. 

Application  of  rules. 

1.  The  trunk  line  rules  take  precedence  over  the  western  classification. 
AH  the  respondents  in  this  case  are  members  of  the  western  trunk  line 
committee  and  as  such  they  abide  by  the  trunk  line  rules.  Medford  Fruit 
Package  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1906,  1  R.  C.  44,  48. 

TRUNKING  CONDITIONS. 

Additional  trunk  line  needed  to  render  adequate  telephone  service,  see 
Telephone  Utilities,  53. 

TWINE. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  twine,  see  Rates — Railroaei,  294. 

ULTRA  VIRES. 

Usurpation  of  franchise  or  exercise  of  unauthorized  powers  by  a  railroad 
company,  see  Railroads,  75. 
by  a  telephone  company,  a  grievance  against  sovereignty,  see  Tele- 
phone Utilities,  65. 


Unit  Costs  485 


UMBRELLA  SHED. 

See  Station  Facilities,  37. 

UNDISTRIBUTED  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  undistributed  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit 
costs  for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  29. 
for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  56. 
for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  67. 
for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  73. 
for  joint  (electric  and  water)  utilities,  see  Accounting,  117-118. 

UNDUE  PREFERENCE. 

See  Discrimination. 

UNEARNED  INCREMENT. 

Unearned  increment  as  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see 
Valuation,  124-125. 

UNIFORM  ACCOUNTS. 

See  Accounting,  186. 

UNIFORM  METER  RATES. 

Uniform   or   straight   meter   rates   generally    undesirable,   see   Rates — 
Electric,  50;  Rates — Water,  58. 

UNIFORM  SERVICE  RATES,  RULES,  ETC. 

Uniform  service  rates,   rules  and  regulations  among  telephone  companies^ 
see  Telephone  Utilities,  54. 

UNION  STATION. 

See  Station  Facilities,  38-39. 

UNIT  COSTS. 

Average  cost  of  unit  seldom  a  satisfactory  basis  for  rate  making  for  gas 

utilities,  see  Accounting,  61. 
Determination  of  unit  costs  for  electric  utilities,  see  Accounting,  8-34. 

for  express  companies,  see  Accounting,  35-38. 

for  gas  utilities,  see  Accounting,  39-62. 

for  heating  utilities,  see  Accounting,  63-68. 

for  interurban  railways,  see  Accounting,  69-88. 


486  Unit  Costs 


Determination  of  unit  costs  for  joint  utilities,  see  Accounting,  89-126. 
for  railroads,  see  Accounting,  127-137. 
for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  138-150. 
for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  151-173. 
for  water  utilities,  see  Accounting,  174-185. 

UNIT  PRICES. 

Basis  of  unit  prices  in  the  valuation  of  property    of   public    utilities,    see 

Valuation,  68-70. 
Unit  prices  in  determination  of  value  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation, 

154-156. 

U.   S.   MAIL  TRAINS. 

Power  of  Commission  to  stop  interstate  trains  carrying  U.  S.  mail,  see 
Railroad  Commission,  58. 

UNJUST  DISCRIMINATION. 

See  Discrimination. 

UNLIMITED  SERVICE. 

Option  of  having  unlimited  toll  service  or  paying  a  toll  charge  on  message 
basis,  see  Rates — Telephone,  77. 

UNLOADING. 

Free  time  allowance  for  unloading,  see  Demurrage  Rules,  1-7. 

UNREASONABLE  RATES. 

See  Rates. 

USE. 

Right  of  common  carrier  to  designate  purpose  for  which  their  tracks 
shall  be  used,  see  Railroads,  101. 

Use  to  which  article  is  put  as  element  considered  in  making  railroad 
rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  145. 

Use  to  which  an  article  is  put  as  matter  considered  in  determining  reason- 
ableness of  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  191. 

UTILITIES. 

See  Electric  Utilities;  Gas  Utilities;  Heating  Utilities;  Public 
Utilities;  Telephone  Utilities;  Toll  Bridges;  Water  Utilities. 

UTILITY  CARS. 

Electric  railway  not  a  common  carrier  of  freight  for  hire,  see  Street 
Railways,  31,  49. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities  487 


VALUATION. 


L     DETERMINATION    OF    THE    VALUE    OF    PROPERTY    OF    PUBLIC 
UTILITIES. 

a.  Elements  considered.  c.   Valuation  in  particular  cases. 

b.  Methods  of  appraisal. 


I.  DETERMINATION  OF  THE  VALUE  OF  PROPERTY  OF 

PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. 
In  generaL 

1.  The  rules  laid  down  for  determining  the  fair  value  of  the  property 
are  not  very  definite,  but  the  courts  hrave  said  that  in  ascertaining  the 
value  of  the  property,  the  original  cost  of  construction,  the  amount 
expended  for  permanent  improvements,  the  amount  and  market  value  of 
the  bonds  and  stocks,  the  present  as  compared  with  the  original  cost  of 
construction,  the  probable  earning  capacity  of  the  property  under  the 
particular  rates  prescribed,  and  the  sum  required  to  meet  the  operating 
expenses,  were  all  matters  for  consideration,  and  to  be  given  such  weight 
as  might  be  just  and  right  in  each  case,  with  due  regard  for  the  rights  of 
the  public  as  well  as  for  the  interests  of  the  railroad  company.  It  has 
also  been  held  that  in  determining  what  is  a  fair  rate  of  interest  upon  the 
valuation,  such  factors  as  the  current  rates  of  interest  and  profits  are 
among  those  which  should  receive  due  consideration.  Noble  et  al.  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  767,  775. 

2.  The  original  cost  of  construction,  the  cost  of  reconstruction  new, 
the  cost  of  reconstruction  new  less  depreciation,  the  assets  and  liabilities 
when  taken  as  a  whole,  the  capitalization  and  the  gross  earnings  and 
operating  expenses,  are  elements  that  enter  into  the  value  of  the  public 
utilities  and  should  be  considered  in  determining  their  value  for  rate- 
making  and  other  purposes.  Each  one  of  these  elements,  in  fact,  con- 
stitutes evidence  of  what  is  the  fair  value.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  631;  In  re  Menominee  &  Marinette  U.  6c  Tr.  Co.,  1909. 
3  R.  C.  778,  791-792;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El. 
Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  590;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks. 
Sc  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  302,  308-309;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sz 
El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  255;  In  re  Purchase  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Plant, 
1914,  13  R.  C.  452,  465. 

3.  In  determining  the  value  of  the  physical  property  of  a  public 
utility  several  elements  must  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  three 
elements  of  greatest  importance  in  fixing  the  value  of  such  plants  are  the 
original  cost,  the  cost  of  reproducing  the  plant,  and  the  present  value.  As 
to  which  of  these  elements  shall  be  given  the  greatest  consideration, 
must  depend  upon  the  circumstances  in  each  case  and  must  also  depend 
upon  the  purpose  for  which  the  valuation  is  made.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo 
Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  631;  In  re  Menominee  and  Marinette  Lt. 
Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  785-787;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  557;  In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks. 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  71,  74. 


488 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 
In  general. 

4.  The  investors  in  the  plant  and  those  who  carry  on  its  business  are 
equitably  entitled  to  reasonable  returns  for  interest  and  profits  on  a  valua- 
tion that  fairly  represents  the  legitimate  and  necessary  costs  of  construct- 
ing the  plant  and  of  building  up  its  business.  The  valuation  which  is 
thus  made  the  basis  for  the  earnings  or  the  rates  should  also  be  a  valuation 
that  is  subject  to  the  fewest  possible  fluctuations.  Such  a  valuation  as 
this  appears  to  bo  equitable  to  the  investors  and  those  who  carry  on  the 
business  on  the  one  hand  and  to  the  customers  of  the  plant  on  the  other. 
It  also  furnishes  a  basis  upon  which  rates  may  be  fixed  that  are  reasonable 
and  just  to  all  concerned  and  that  also  have  such  stability  as  is  required 
by  the  best  interests  of  those  affected.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  640. 

5.  From  the  standpoint  of  justice  between  investor  and  consumer, 
the  fairest  valuation  for  rate-making  purposes  would  seem  to  be  that 
which  represents  a  fair  cost  of  the  f^lant  as  well  as  of  its  business  and  fran- 
chise. This  cost  measures  the  sacrifices  of  the  investors  as  well  as  the 
amount  that  has  been  incurred  for  the  benefit  of  the  customers.  Hill 
et  al.  V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  723;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co. 
et  al.  V.  Madison  Gas  d:  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  535. 

6.  Items  charged  to  operating  expenses  of  public  utilities  should  not 
also  be  included  in  the  value  of  the  plant.  As  to  which  one  of  these  two 
places  any  given  item  of  cost  belongs  from  a  theoretical  point  of  view, 
would  seem  to  depend  upon  its  nature.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  537-538. 

7.  The  value  of  the  plant,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  rate  schedule, 
does  not  always  admit  of  ready  analysis.  An  inventory  of  the  property 
and  its  appraisement  furnishes  a  tangible  basis,  but  alone  may  not  be 
rehable  since  it  may  not  always  take  full  cognizance  of  unusual  obstacles 
in  organization,  incorporation  and  construction,  fluctuations  in  prices 
of  materials,  labor  difficulties,  contingencies,  etc.  These  items  of  expense, 
under  proper  accounting,  are  revealed  from  the  construction  records 
which  should  show,  by  proper  entries,  all  disbursements  properly  charge- 
able to  construction.  Other  factors,  however,  such  as  depreciation 
through  wear  and  tear  in  service,  the  failure  of  the  management  to  keep 
its  property  abreast  of  the  march  of  invention  and  progress,  the  extent 
to  which  the  facilities  of  the  plant  are  capable  of  supplying  the  needs 
of  a  growing  and  shifting  population,  are  elements  of  present  value. 
Taken  alone,  not  any  of  these  methods  of  determining  value  is  conclusive. 
They  merely  supply  evidence  of  what  is  a  proper  solution.  When, 
however,  they  are  all  considered,  so  that  there  shall  be  eleminated  indi- 
vidual fluctuations  and  abnormal  situations  and  the  plant  gauged  by 
broad  standards  of  reasonableness,  it  is  possible  to  ascertain  the  fair 
present  value  with  approximate  accuracy.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt. 
&  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  6,  7. 

8.  For  rate-making  purposes  the  actual  total  investment  in  the  enter- 
prise, subject  to  certain  qualifications,  seems  to  be  the  basis  for  determin- 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 489 

ing  the  resonableness  of  the  charges  that  may  be  exacted  of  the  pubUc 
for  the  services  rendered  f)r  product  furnished  in  certain  jurisdictions. 
Of  course,  where  such  information  is  not  available,  the  reasonable  value 
of  the  investment  would  have  to  be  ascertained  by  some  method  of  ap- 
praisement, and  in  such  event  the  "actual  total  investment"  doctrine 
would  be  inapplicable.     City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  220. 

9.  The  valuation  placed  upon  utilities  depends,  to  some  extent  at 
least,  upon  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  intended.  For  instance,  in  valuing 
utilities  for  the  purpose  of  condemnation  and  purchase,  many  elements 
must  often  be  taken  into  account  which  should  not  be  given  any  considera- 
tion in  valuations  made  for  the  purposes  of  rate  making.  In  re  Manitowoc 
W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  71,  72-73. 

10.  In  fixing  the  value  of  a  property  for  rate-making  purposes,  con- 
sideration should  be  given,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  ability  of  the  utility  to 
meet  the  reasonable  demands  placed  upon  it  by  its  consumers,  and  to  the 
existence  of  investment  beyond  the  reasonable  demands  of  the  present 
or  near  future  on  the  other.     City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  Hi.  &  P.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  C.  477,  480. 

11.  A  large  number  of  factors  have  been  suggested  as  probable  tests 
of  value.  Among  these  are  capitalization,  the  appraised  cost  of  reproduc- 
tion new,  the  depreciated  or  present  value,  the  appraised  value  of  the 
earnings,  the  value  for  purposes  of  taxation,  and  the  appraised  value  of 
the  service.  The  importance  of  the  various  factors  and  their  equity  to 
both  the  company  and  the  public  will  depend  upon  the  availability  of 
evidence  and  the  local  circumstances  surrounding  the  case,  such  as  the 
history  of  the  property,  the  sacrifices  of  the  owners,  and  the  satisfaction 
that  is  given  to  the  public.  No  single  factor  can  be  said  to  control  in  each 
and  every  valuation  case,  and  it  appears  that  no  single  rule  has  been  de- 
veloped by  judicial  interpretation  in  proceedings  of  this  kind.  City  of 
Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  63-64. 

12.  The  fair  value  of  the  property  and  business  of  utilities  can,  as  a 
rule,  be  best  determined  from  such  factors  as  their  original  cost  of  construc- 
tion and  development,  and  from  the  cost  of  reproduction  of  the  same  under 
conditions  which  are  normal,  and  when,  in  both  cases,  full  consideration 
is  given  to  the  depreciation  that  has  taken  place  in  the  property  because 
of  age,  use,  and  other  reasons.    City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co., 

1912,  10  R.  C,  1,  85. 

13.  The  value  of  a  plant  and  its  business  that  is  ultimately  found  to 
be  fair  and  equitable  under  the  circumstances,  may  not  agree  either  with 
the  original  cost  or  with  the  cost  of  reproduction,  but  in  most  instances 
it  is  likely  to  be  found  at  some  figure  in  the  neighborhood  of  these  costs. 
Operators  in  public  utilities  who  fail  to  use  ordinary  business  judgment 
either  in  the  location,  construction  or  management  of  the  same,  or  who 
incur  unnecessary  and  excessive  obligations  in  other  ways,  should  not  be 
permitted  to  shift  such  extra  costs  upon  the  public.  It  is,  in  fact,  to 
prevent  such  shifting  and  other  unfair  practices  of  this  kind,  which  are 
possible  under  monopolistic  conditions,  that  public  utilities  have  been 
placed  under  government  regulation.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc 
L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  85. 


490 Valuation. — Of  property  of  p.uhlic  utilities 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 

Amount  actually  invested. 

14.  The  company  is  entitled  to  a  fair  return,  not  always  upon  the 
cost  of  the  property,  because  it  may  have  cost  too  much;  not  always  upon 
the  outstanding  indebtedness,  because  it  may  be  in  excess  of  the  real 
value  of  the  property;  not  always  upon  the  total  amount  invested,  be- 
cause some  portion  of  that  which  is  acquired  by  the  investment  may  be 
neither  necessary  nor  presently  useful  for  the  public  service;  but  upon 
the  fair  present  value  of  that  which  is  used  for  the  public  benefits,  having 
due  regard  always  to  the  reasonable  value  of  the  service  rendered.  {Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  u.  San  Francisco,  1908,  165  Fed.  667,  680).  Fullmer  v. 
Wausau  St.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  114,  124. 

15.  Where  the  company  paid  more  than  it  should  have  paid,  the 
amount  of  this  excess  should  not  be  included  in  the  total  sum  upon  which 
the  company  is  entitled  to  a  reasonable  rate  of  return,  because  upon  this 
assumption,  in  the  language  of  the  court,  the  property  "cost  too  much." 
{Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  v.  San  Francisco,  1908,  165  Fed.  667,  680.) 
Fullmer  v.  Wausau  St.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  114,  125. 

16.  The  rule  that  the  money  actually  invested  should  furnish  the 
basis  upon  which  returns  should  be  made,  without  qualifications,  is  subject 
to  serious  objections.  It  would  impose  upon  the  public,  in  some  cases, 
the  obligation  of  paying  returns  upon  extravagant  and  unwise  investments. 
It  can  only  be  accepted  as  sound  when  the  money  sunk  in  the  investment 
has  been  prudently  expended  and  is  clearly  not  so  excessive  in  amount, 
in  comparison  with  the  actual  present  value  of  the  investment,  that  to 
pay  a  return  upon  it  would  require  the  exaction  of  rates  that  are  unusual, 
or  higher  than  the  value  of  the  service  to  the  customer.  This  is  in  accord 
with  the  best  considered  law,  in  our  judgment,  on  the  subject.  City  of 
Appleton  V.  Appleton  Water  Whs.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  215,  221. 

Book  value. 

17.  The  book  value  of  the  plants  to  the  present  owners  as  this  value 
is  disclosed  by  the  construction  accounts  and  balance  sheets  is  also  im- 
portant in  determining  the  value  for  rate-making  purposes.  It  is,  however, 
so  much  dependent  upon  the  original  cost,  and  even  on  the  cost  of  reproduc- 
tion and  other  elements,  that  it  is  difficult  to  draw  any  distinct  lines  be- 
tween them.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sz  El.  Co.,  1910, 
4R.  C.  501,  557-558. 

18.  Further  light  on  the  original  cost  and  the  book  value  may  be  ob- 
tained from  the  balance  sheets  of  the  plants,  which  may  be  said  to  repre- 
sent statements  of  the  assets  and  liabilities  from  year  to  year  as  shown  on 
the  books  of  the  company.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc 
El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  563. 

19.  If  the  books  of  a  utility  have  been  accurately  kept  and  if  correct 
methods  of  accounting  have  been  followed,  the  books  should  show  the 
total  amount  expended  for  construction  and  also  the  extent  of  the  deprecia- 
tion of  the  property.  The  book  value  should  not  ordinarily  vary  to  any 
great  extent  from  the  cost  of  reproduction.  Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun. 
W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  C.  485,  489. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 491 


20.  A  summary  of  thirty-five  valuations  of  electric  utilities  in  the 
state  made  by  the  Commission  shows  that  only  three  have  a  book  value 
below  the  physical  valuation  and  that  the  average  book  value  is  from  50 
per  cent  to  70  per  cent  in  excess  of  the  Commission's  valuation  (ex- 
cluding the  12  per  cent  overhead).    Douglass  et  al.  v.  Equitable  EL  Lt.  Co. 

1913,  12  R.  C.  337,  341,  342. 

Capitalization. 

21.  The  capitalization  should  be  considered  in  determining  the  value 
of  a  utility  for  rate-making  purposes,  as  it  may  have  some  bearing  on  the 
values.  In  many  cases*,  however,  it  is  found  to  cover  such  a  variety  of 
elements  both  relevant  and  irrelevant,  that  it  frequently  is  of  comparative- 
ly little  assistance  in  determining  the  fair  value  of  plants.  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  at.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  557-558. 

Capitalization  of  amount  claimed  due  for  past  services  rendered 
by  utility. 

22.  In  our  calculations  we  have  assumed  that  the  company  did  actu- 
ally receive  the  usual  amount  of  hydrant  rentals  during  the  years  in  ques- 
tion. If  the  company  can  not  recover  the  whole  of  whatever  amount  it 
claims  is  due  it  must  be  because,  after  a  fair  trial  in  court,  it  is  found  that 
the  company  is  not  entitled  to  it;  and  if  the  company  is  not  entitled  to  it, 
it  can  hardly  be  claimed  that  the  Commission  should  capitalize  the  amount 
in  controversy  against  the  consumers  in  the  present  case.  City  of  Wash- 
burn V.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  74,  80-81. 

Capitalized  value. 

23.  It  is  well  known  from  experience  that  public  utilities  are  mostly 
over-capitalized,  and  that  the  par  value  of  their  outstanding  securities 
usually  exceeds  the  actual  investment  in  the  property  that  is  used  and 
useful  in  connection  with  the  services  they  render  to  the  public.  In  fact, 
the  bonds  alone  often  amount  to  more  than  the  cost-value  of  this  property. 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  84. 

Cost  of  securing  capital. 

24.  The  cost  of  capital  and  of  the  enterpriser  are  fixed  by  economic 
forces  or  laws  in  the  open  market.  These  laws  cannot  be  controlled  either 
by  the  state,  the  city,  or  this  Commission.  Public  utilities,  like  everybody 
else,  must  pay  the  market  prices  for  what  they  need.  Exceptions  to  this 
are  only  temporary  in  their  nature.  This  Commission  has  been  mad'e 
aware  of  this  is  in  more  ways  than  one.    In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co., 

1914,  14  R.  C.»  721,  739-740. 

"Damages  to  owner  of  joint  property. 

25.  The  fact  that  there  must  be  a  separation  of  the  electric  property 
from  the  mill  property,  and  as  such  separation  must  necessarily  result  in 
leaving  to  the  owners  of  the  property  certain  units  which  are  necessary 
and  required  for  the  operation  of  the  mill  as  well  as  of  the  electric  plant, 
damages  must  be  included  for  the  injury  inflicted  upon  the  owner  of  the 
property.  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  80;  In  re  Purchase 
El  PI  of  Prairie  du  Sac  Mill  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  360,  363. 


492 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 
Earning  value. 

26.  The  earning  value  of  a  plant  and  the  rates  the  plant  charges  for 
the  services  it  renders  depend  upon  each  other.  In  view  of  this  fact  it 
must  also  be  clear  that  the  former  cannot  be  a  safe  or  equitable  basis  for 
the  latter,  and  that  the  earnings  cannot  be  a  fair  basis  for  any  valuation 
upon  which  rates  must  be  based.  This  is  quite  generally  true,  regardless 
of  the  methods  under  which  the  earnings  may  be  used  for  measuring  this 
value  and  whether  it  applies  to  the  value  of  the  plant  alone,  or  to  the  value 
of  its  business  alone.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623, 
716-720;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  63. 

Financial  condition  of  plants. 

27.  In  determining  the  value  of  a  public  utility  for  rate-making  pur- 
poses, considerable  importance  should  be  attached  to  the  conditions  under 
which  the  plants  are  being  operated  and  by  which  they  are  surrounded. 
Some  plants,  for  instance,  may  earn  more  than  reasonable  returns  on  the 
investment,  others  again  may  earn  only  this  amount,  while  there  may  be 
plants  that  fall  short  of  earning  their  expenses.  These  are  circumstances 
which  can  not  be  overlooked  in  the  adjustment  of  rates.  Facts  that  may 
be  applicable  to  one  of  these  classes  of  plants,  may  be  entirely  out  of  place 
for  one  or  both  of  the  other  classes.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  C.  623,  730-733,  749. 

Franchise  values — In  general. 

28.  A  fair  valuation  of  franchises  for  rate-making  purposes  cannot 
be  based  on  earning  value.  Earnings  depend  on  rates  and  the  one  can 
therefore  not  be  a  fair  basis  upon  which  to  fix  the  other.  The  value  of  a 
franchise  is  itself  based  on  the  capacity  of  a  plant  to  earn  profits,  and  its 
value  increases  as  the  profits  increase.  If,  therefore,  high  profits  could  be 
justified  because  of  great  franchise  values,  this  fact,  in  turn,  would  enhance 
the  value  of  the  franchise  itself,  and  so  justify  still  higher  charges.  Hill 
et  al.  V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  724;  City  of  Appleton  v. 
Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  281. 

29.  The  franchise  value  that  is  just  to  both  investor  and  customer  is 
that  value  which  is  represented  by  costs.  A  reasonable  valuation  of  the 
sacrifices  involved  in  furnishing  the  service  constitutes  the  fairest  basis 
for  just  charges.  Upon  this  amount  the  investors  are  ordinarily  entitled 
to  reasonable  returns.  On  the  whole,  the  cost  appears  to  be  the  best  and 
safest  basis,  not  only  for  valuation,  but  for  earnings  or  rates.  Hill  et  al. 
V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  724. 

30.  The  fact  that  it  appears  to  be  inequitable  to  include  any  other 
franchise  values  for  rate-fixing  purposes  than  those  which  are  represented' 
by  legitimate  costs,  does  not  mean  that  franchises  are  without  value  to 
their  owners.  On  the  contrary,  franchises  are  of  immense  value.  With- 
out them  the  physical  property  of  a  plant  would  be  worth  little  or  nothing. 
In  fact,  it  would  be  worth  little,  if  anything,  above  its  scrap  value.  This 
is  certainly  true  of  the  greater  proportion  of  the  various  parts  of  the  plants 

'  outside  of  the  real  estate.    Franchises  have  value  because  "they  authorize 
the  gainful  use  of  private  property  in  a  particular  manner,"  and  for  the 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 493 

reason  that  by  doing  so  they  ordinarily  maintain  at  par  the  amount  in- 
vested in  the  plant  and  their  business.  Any  right  that  will  accomplish 
all  this  is  of  immense  importance,  even  if  it  cannot  be  directly  capitalized 
for  rate-making  purposes.  By  imparting  such  value  to  the  tangible 
property  and  the  business  of  the  plants,  the  franchises  become  a  part  of 
their  total  value  and  should  be  treated  accordingly.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo 
Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  730. 

31.  The  rights  to  do  business  in  a  particular  city,  which  rights  have 
been  granted  free  of  cost,  can  hardly  be  legitimately  capitalized  by  utilities 
which  are  not  entitled  to  more  than  reasonable  returns  on  their  invest- 
ment. State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  EL  Co.,  1910,  4 
R.  C.  501,  578;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  \V.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187, 
277. 

Capitalization  based  on  estimate  of  free  service  to  city  under 

original  franchise. 

32.  Claim  was  made  for  a  franchise  value  based  on  an  estimate  of  the 
free  service  rendered  according  to  the  original  franchise.  The  franchise 
has  been  given  up  for  an  indeterminate  permit  and  reliable  records  of  free 
service  during  the  life  of  the  franchise  are  not  available.  Upon  the  sur- 
render of  respondent's  original  franchise,  obligations  to  supply  the  city 
with  free  service  ceased,  and  the  value  cf  such  service  as  may  have  been  sub- 
sequently rendered  can  hardly  be  made  now  the  basis  of  a  franchise 
value.  It  does  not  appear  that  a  very  material  sum  may  be  properly 
added  to  the  valuation  on  account  of  operating  expenses  incurred  for  free 
service  under  the  earlier  franchise  provisions.  City  of  Rhinelander  v. 
Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  406,  428-429. 


Exclusive  rights  to  operate  pviblic  utilities. 

33.  That  exclusive  rights  to  operate  public  utilities  can  have  any 
value  that  can  be  equitably  capitalized  as  against  the  consumers,  appears 
to  be  extremely  doubtful.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas 
&  EL  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  586-587. 

Indeterminate  permit. 

34.  The  respondent  is  operating  under  an  indeterminate  permit, 
which  it  obtained  by  operation  of  law  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  the  statute,  and  which  is  much  more  valuable  than  the  ordinary  special 
franchises,  because  the  company  now  has  a  legally  protected  monopoly 
and  is  subject  to  no  different  supervision  and  regulation  than  it  would 
have  been  had  it  continued  to  operate  under  its  original  grant.  Further- 
more, its  investment  is  now  protected  not  only  against  the  consequences  of 
competition,  but  also  against  the  possibility  of  total  loss  on  the  expiration 
of  the  original  grant.  It  can  never  be  deprived  of  its  property  except  on 
the  payment  of  the  fair  value  thereof  by  the  municipality.  While  such 
indeterminate  permit  or  franchise  is  of  great  value  to  the  respondent,  it 
could  not  operate  to  enhance  the  value  of  the  property  upon  which  re- 
turns must  be  computed.  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  284-285. 

35.  Obviously  the  term  of  the  indeterminate  permit  is  indefinite  and 
limited  only  by  the  happening  of  the  event  specified  in  the  statute.    The 


494 Valuation.— Of  property  of  public  utilities 

moment  the  municipality  exercises  its  option  to  purchase  the  plant  of  a 
public  utility  operating  under  an  indeterminate  permit,  the  life  of  such 
permit  is  terminated  and  henceforth  the  same  possesses  no  more  value 
than  a  franchise  for  a  definite  term  of  years  upon  the  expiration  of  the 
term.  It  is  manifestly  the  purpose  of  the  law  to  relieve  a  municipality 
of  any  and  all  obligation  to  make  compensation  for  the  privilege  of  doing 
business,  granted  to  a  public  utility,  when  the  municipality  determines  to 
acquire  the  property  of  such  public  utility.  As  the  company's  privilege 
of  continuing  in  business  has  expired,  no  compensation  can  be  awarded 
for  a  right  that  no  longer  exists.  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  3 
R.  G.  67,  84;  In  re  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  97,  118-119; 
In  re  Purchase  Oshkosh  Water  Wks.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  602,  663. 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED.— Continued 

Franchise  values — Telephone  utilities. 

36.  Under  the  decisions  of  the  supreme  court  of  this  state  no  local 
franchise  is  required  by  a  telephone  company,  and  none  could,  therefore, 
lawfully  be  granted  by  the  local  authorities.  Franchise  values  do  not, 
therefore,  attach  to  the  business  of  telephone  companies  in  Wisconsin. 
Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  60. 

Future  value. 

37.  The  law  under  which  the  Commission  derives  its  authority  to 
supervise  the  rates  of  telephone  companies  provides,  among  other  things, 
that  "the  Commission  shall  value  all  the  property  of  every  public  utility 
actually  used  and  useful  for  the  convenience  of  the  public."  It  is  the  mani- 
fest intention  of  the  law  that  this  value,  and  no  other,  be  used  in  determin- 
ing the  reasonableness  of  rates.  No  authority  has  been  shown  the  Com- 
mission for  considering  value  which  it  is  expected  will  go  into  the  plant, 
but  not  yet  there,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  reasonableness  of 
rates.  The  blanket  authority  to  increase  rates  at  the  will  of  the  petitioner, 
up  to  a  certain  amount  determined  only  by  the  expectations  of  the  peti- 
tioner as  to  the  necessity  of  increasing  its  investment,  cannot  be  granted. 
In  re  Appl.  Portage  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  692,  693. 

Going  concern. 

38.  While  the  franchise  value  is  excluded  from  the  cost  of  reproduc- 
tion, arguments  can  be  adduced  for  adding  to  the  cost  of  reproduction  a 
fair  amount  representing  the  value  of  the  railway  organization  and  its 
business  and  traffic  connections.  Buell  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907, 
1  R.  C.  324,  486. 

39.  Although  the  franchise  of  the  public  utility  has  expired,  its  plant 
is  to  be  taken  over  by  the  village  as  a  going  concern,  and  just  compensa- 
tion must  be  awarded  for  the  property  taken  as  such,  that  is,  as  a  living 
and  operating  entity,  engaged  in  serving  the  public,  and  not  as  a  mere 
plant  without  patrons  and  without  privilege  or  right  to  operate  and  serve 
the  public  and  having  but  a  salvage  value.  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co,, 
1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  85-86. 

40.  No  valuation  based  on  any  other  theory  than  that  of  the  plant 
being  a  going  concern  can  be  accepted  under  the  ruling  of  the  courts. 
In  re  Purchase  El.  PL  of  Prairie  du  Sac  Mill  &  Lt.  Co.,  1914, 1 5  R.  C.  360, 362. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 495 

41.  The  value  to  be  fixed  must  be  the  value  of  the  going  concern, 
and  not  the  value  of  the  physical  plant,  as  an  entity  distinct  from  the 
business  in  which  the  company  is  engaged.  To  determine  this  fair  value 
consideration  must  be  given  to  such  elements  as  the  value  of  the  physical 
property,  the  going  value,  the  cost  of  securing  money,  etc.  In  re  Pur- 
chase Janesville  Water  Wks.  Plant,  1915,  15  R.  C.  674,  676. 

Going  value — Definition  of. 

42.  By  going  value  we  understand  is  meant  that  value  which  arises 
from  having  an  established  going  business.  While  not  the  exact  equivalent 
of  good  will,  as  applied  in  ordinary  business,  it  is  of  a  somewhat  similar 
nature,  and  attaches  to  the  business,  rather  than  to  the  property  employed 
in  such  business.  The  fact  that  the  business  is  established  is,  of  course, 
a  material  fact  in  ascertaining  the  value  of  the  plant,  and  especially  is 
this  true  where  the  property  is  being  estimated  for  the  purpose  of  sale  or 
condemnation;  but  as  a  basis  for  estimating  profits  its  significance  is 
less  apparent.  {Cedar  Rapids  Water  Co.  v.  Cedar  Rapids,  1902,  118  la. 
234,  262.)   In  re  Cashton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  87. 

Distinguished  from  the  value  of  a  going  concern. 

43.  In  the  testimony  going  value  was  defined  as  that  value  which  is 
added  to  the  physical  value  of  a  plant  by  virtue  of  the  successful  and 
harmonious  operation  of  the  whole,  and  the  coordination  of  the  various 
parts.  This  might,  with  propriety,  be  termed  a  definition  of  the  value  of 
a  going  concern  as  distinguished  from  going  value  or  the  uncompensated 
cost  incurred  in  building  up  the  business.  The  value  of  a  going  concern  is 
generally  greater  than  the  sum  of  the  values  of  the  separate  physical 
parts  of  the  plant.  The  seller  of  such  a  plant  is  in  a  position  to  exact  more, 
and  the  purchaser  would  generally  be  willing  to  pay  more,  than  for  a 
plant  which  has  no  established  business.  In  expropriation  proceedings, 
likewise,  the  owner  or  owners  of  a  plant  which  is  a  going  concern  would 
doubtless  be  awarded  a  larger  amount  of  damages  than  the  owner  or 
owners  of  a  plant  which  has  not  yet  been  placed  upon  a  going  basis.  But 
this  "more"  in  the  value  of  a  plant  in  the  case  of  purchase  and  sale, 
or  expropriation,  is  not  a  matter  in  which  the  public  is  interested  in  pro- 
ceedings of  this  kind.  This  "more"  is  not  property  used  and  useful  for 
the  convenience  of  the  public  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  property  is  devoted  to  the  public  use,  and  reasonable  care 
has  been  exercised  in  all  the  phases  of  its  management,  but  the  owners 
have  not  received  a  fair  return  during  the  earlier  years  of  the  operation 
of  the  plant  in  which  the  property  is  used  for  the  convenience  of  the 
public,  the  deficit  thus  incurred  must  be  made  up  out  of  later  earnings, 
insofar  as  this  is  commercially  possible  and  expedient.  In  other  words, 
every  effort  honestly  put  forth,  every  dollar  properly  expended,  and  every 
obligation  legitimately  incurred  in  the  establishment  of  an  efficient 
public  utility  business  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  making  of 
rates  for  such  business.  Collectively  the  elements  just  referred  to  may 
be  designated  by  the  term  going  value,  and  in  this  sense  there  can  be  no 
question  regarding  the  propriety  and  justice  of  admitting  going  value 
as  a  consideration  in  the  determination  of  rates.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wfs. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  1,  60-61. 


496  Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 

Going  value — Necessity  for  considering. 

44.  The  courts  have  almost  universally  held,  that  going  value  is  an 
important  and  valuable  consideration,  which  cannot  be  left  out  of  account 
in  fixing  the  fair  value  of  the  property  of  a  public  service  corporation 
devoted  to  the  public  service.  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G. 
67,  94-95;  In  re  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  97,  120. 

Net  cost  of  building  up  the  business — In  general, 

45.  New  plants  are  seldom  paying  at  the  start.  Several  years  are 
usually  required  before  they  obtain  a  sufficient  amount  of  business  or 
earnings  to  cover  operating  expenses,  including  depreciation  and  a  reason- 
able rate  of  interest  upon  the  investment.  The  amount  by  which  the 
earnings  fail  to  meet  these  requirements  may  thus  be  regarded  as  deficits 
from  the  operation.  These  deficits  constitute  the  cost  of  building  up  the 
business  of  the  plant.  They  are  as  much  a  part  of  the  cost  of  building  up 
the  business  as  loss  of  interest  during  the  construction  of  the  plant  is  a 
part  of  the  cost  of  its  construction.  They  are  taken  into  account  by 
those  who  enter  upon  such  undertakings,  and  if  they  cannot  be  recovered 
in  some  way,  the  plant  fails  by  that  much  to  yield  reasonable  returns 
upon  the  amount  that  has  been  expended  upon  it  and  its  business.  Hill 
€i  al.  V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  706-709;  In  re  Menominee  & 
Marinette  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  792;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  u. 
Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  577;  Cunningham  et  al.  v. 
Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  302,  314-315;  City  of 
Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  277;  City  of  Beloit  v. 
Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  277;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M. 
E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  122;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  u. 
Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  742;  City  of  Green  Bay  v. 
Green  Bay  Water  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236,  243;  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hwley 
W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  291,  299;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  350,  365;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm., 
1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  281;  In  re  Purchase  Oshkosh  W.  Wks.  Plant,  1913, 
12  R.  G.  602,  664-666. 

46.  While  the  facts  which  have  been  presented  indicate  that  the  cost 
of  building  up  the  business  of  a  plant  is  an  element  that  should  be  con- 
sidered in  determining  its  value  for  rate-making  purposes,  it  is,  of  course, 
a  fact  that  these  expenditures  or  deficits  must  be  legitimate  and  reasonable. 
They  should  not  include  items  that  have  been  incurred  under  other  than 
usual  conditions,  or  items  that  could  have  been  avoided  by  the  exercise  of 
ordinary  care  and  business  judgment.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  W.  Co.,  1909, 
3  R.  G.  623,  715;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.^ 
1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  585-586;  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  215,  278;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  <Sc 
Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  302,  315;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  G.  228,  278;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187, 
277-278;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497,  513- 
514;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100, 109. 

47.  Going  value  is  an  element  which  depends  upon  the  circumstances 
in  each  case,  and  cannot  be  determined  arbitrarily.    The  addition  of  an 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 497 

amount  to  cover  going  value  depends  upon  the  condition  of  the  business 
and  not  upon  a  rule  which  would  give  to  all  concerns  a  going  value, 
regardless  of  their  financial  situation.  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  W. 
Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  281;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  512;  In  re  Purchase  Janesville  W.  Wks.  Plant,  1915, 
15  R.  C.  691,  692. 

48.  In  estimating  the  amount  for  going  value  no  allowance  should 
be  made  for  deficits  which  were  incurred  under  and  borne  by  others  than 
the  present  owners,  and  which  have  been  wiped  out  in  the  various  trans- 
fers of  ownership.  That  these  propositions  are,  as  a  rule,  sound  and  equit- 
able, appears  to  be  so  clear  as  to  need  no  further  argument.  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  V.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  586;  City  of  Beloit  v. 
Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  277-278. 

49.  What  consideration  should  be  given  to  losses  that  may  be  the 
result  of  competition  occurring  some  years  after  the  first  construction 
is  a  matter  that  is  not  clear.  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911, 
8  R.  C.  138,  184-185. 

Cost  charged  to  capital  account. 

50.  When  all  the  facts  are  considered,  it  will  probably  be  found  that 
in  most  cases  it  is  better  to  include  the  costs  of  building  up  the  business  in 
the  capital  than  to  attempt  to  wipe  them  out  in  a  comparatively  brief 
period  through  some  system  of  amortization.  These  costs,  as  shown, 
are  in  the  nature  of  an  investment  and  should  therefore,  it  would  seem, 
be  treated  as  such.  They  largely  belong  to  the  same  class  of  costs  as  the 
interest  on  capital  and  certain  other  items  for  which  allowance  is  made 
during  the  construction  period.     Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909, 

3  R.  C.  623,  713. 

51.  When  the  net  cost  of  building  up  the  business  is  added  to  the 
original  capital  upon  which  interest  and  profits  should  be  earned,  it 
becomes  a  permanent  charge  upon  the  consumers.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo 
Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  713;  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 

4  R.  C.  1,  61. 


Cost  charged  to  capital  account  or  gradually  charged 

off  from  earnings. 

52.  Whether  going  value  should  be  made  a  part  of  the  permanent 
capitalization  of  the  plant,  or  provided  for  by  means  of  a  sinking  or  other 
fund,  is  a  matter  to  be  decided  on  the  facts  in  each  particular  case.  Hill 
et  al.  V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  707;  In  re  Menominee  Sc 
Marinette  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  792;  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel. 
Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  61;  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909, 
4  R.  C.  273,  308-309;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  588,  589;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  228,  285;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
187,  215. 

Cost  gradually  charged  off  from  earnings. 

53.  When  the  net  cost  of  building  up  the  business  is  gradually 
written  off,  it  results  in  a  high  annual  charge  upon  the  present  consumers, 
but  in  a  charge  that  will  terminate  when  the  cost  has  been  wiped  out. 


498 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  713;  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  1,  61. 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 

Going  value — Net  cost  of  building  up  the  business — Whether  an 
addition  to  cost  of  reproduction  new  or  present  value. 

54.  Whether  going  value  should  constitute  an  addition  to  the  cost 
new  of  the  property  or  to  the  value  in  its  present  condition,  is  a  matter 
which  must  be  decided  largely  on  the  circumstances  in  each  individual 
case,  or,  rather,  cost  of  reproduction  new,  physical  value  in  present 
condition,  original  investment,  and  going  value  are  all  elements  to  be 
considered  in  ascertaining  the  actual  value  of  the  property.  In  re  Appl. 
Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  497,  515. 

55.  There  may  be  a  question  as  to  whether  the  increment  for  going 
value  should  constitute  an  addition  to  the  cost  new  of  the  property  or 
to  the  value  in  its  existing  condition.  If  the  cost  new  is  the  basis,  it  may 
be  said,  in  general,  that  the  going  value  estimate  should  take  into  consider- 
ation a  rate  of  return  which  should  provide  only  for  return  on  property 
and  not  for  depreciation,  for  if  the  cost  new  is  used,  allowance  is  thereby 
made  in  the  valuation  for  such  amount  as  should  have  been  set  aside  to 
cover  depreciation.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  present  value  is  used,  the 
rate  of  return  which  is  considered  in  arriving  at  the  going  value  must  be 
a  rate  which  will  cover  interest  and  profits,  and  also  depreciation.  In 
the  present  case  it  seems  that  the  allowance  for  going  value  constitutes  a 
considerable  addition  to  the  existing  value,  but  not  a  large  increase  in 
the  cost  new.  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628, 
642. 

Good  will. 

56.  There  may  be  an  eleinent  of  good  will  in  the  business  of  a  public 
service  corporation  where  competition  exists  and  the  public  may  resort 
to  more  than  one  public  utility  for  the  desired  service,  but  where  the 
public  is  confined  to  a  single  public  utility  for  the  service  the  latter  under- 
takes, it  would  seem  that  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  good  will  can  be 
predicated.     In  re  Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  84-85. 

57.  Good  will  is  a  property  right  having  a  value  for  the  purpose  of 
capitalization,  but  from  its  very  nature,  as  well  as  from  its  legal  doctrines, 
it  is  quite  clear  that  good  will  applies  to  competitive  enterprises  only. 
Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  720.^ 

58.  Good  will  is  an  attribute  of  competitive  business.  It  follows 
that,  where  competition  actually  exists  which  is  effective  and  controlling 
in  force,  some  allowance  may  have  to  be  made  for  good  will  in  determining 
the  value  of  a  plant  for  certain  purposes.  Valuation  for  rate  making  is 
not  one  of  these  purposes.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
1,60. 

Intangible  value. 

59.  Generally  speaking,  we  think  that  whatever  "intangible"  value 
can  be  shown  to  exist  should  be  provided  for  by  a  sinking  fund  accumu- 
lated out  of  earnings,  except  in  those  rare  cases,  probably,  in  which  the 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 499 

circumstances  may  make  such  a  course  of  procedure  commercially 
inexpedient  or  otherwise  not  feasible  or  just.  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel. 
Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  1,62. 

Market  value. 

60.  The  market  price  of  public  utilities  does  not  furnish  a  safe  basis 
for  rate  fixing.  The  market  value  may  be  based  on  rates  that  are  too 
high  and  should  be  reduced.  For  rate  fixing  a  reasonable  valuation 
must  be  found.     Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  722. 

Monopoly  privilege. 

61.  Monopoly  privileges  can  manifestly  not  be  justly  capitalized 
as  against  consumers.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc 
El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  578;  In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  71,  105,  130. 

Patent  rights. 

62.  Respondent  claimed  a  certain  amount  of  value  for  certain  patent 
rights.  Such  rights  may,  undoubtedly,  have  values;  but  it  would  hardly 
seem  that  such  values  can  properly  be  considered  as  permanent  capital 
charges.  Rights  of  this  kind  are,  as  a  rule,  secured  because  they  are 
profitable  or  because,  in  one  way  or  another,  they  tend  to  increase  the 
net  earnings.  The  prices  paid  for  such  rights  would  seem  to  be  operating 
expenses  rather  than  capital  charges.  If  regarded  as  capital  charges  at 
all,  they  should  be  written  off  during  the  life  of  these  rights  from  the  profits 
for  which  they  are  responsible.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  C.  1,92. 

Physical  property — In  general. 

63.  The  original  cost,  the  cost  of  reconstruction  new,  and  the  present 
value  bear  a  very  close  relation  to  the  physical  property  of  the  plants 
and  are  therefore  of  the  gpeatest  importance  in  determining  the  value  of 
the  same.  As  to  which  one  of  these  three  elements  is  of  the  greatest 
importance  in  fixing  this  value,  is  a  matter  that  largely  depends  upon  the 
circumstances  in  each  case,  and  may  also  be  more  or  less  affected  by  the 
purposes  for  which  the  valuation  is  intended.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  631;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W. 
Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  302,  309. 

64.  Of  the  physical  plant  alone  the  most  equitable  valuation  for  rate- 
making  purposes  appears  to  be  best  represented  by  the  original  cost  of 
the  plant  and  by  the  cost  of  reproducing  it.  The  original  cost  shows  the 
actual  investment  and  is  given  in  the  construction  accounts.  This  cost, 
with  the  abnormal  and  irrelevant  items,  if  any,  eliminated  or  readjusted, 
should  represent  very  closely  the  legitimate,  necessary,  and  therefore 
the  equitable  cost  of  the  physical  plant.  This  cost  should  also  closely 
correspond  to  the  cost  of  reproducing  the  plant  new.  This  is  especially 
true  when  the  prices  and  other  elements  entering  into  the  cost  new 
represent  normal  prices  and  conditions  and  when  the  appraisal  and  com- 
putations have  been  made  with  ordinary  care.  The  cost  of  reproduction 
new  as  thus  described  less  depreciation,  or  the  present  value,  also  throws 
considerable  light  upon  the  equitable  cost-value  of  the  plant.  Hill  et  al. 
V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  631-694. 


500  Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 

Physical  property — In  general. 

65.  In  determining  the  fair  value  of  the  tangible  property,  the  total 
investment  in  the  plant  at  the  time  of  appraisement,  the  original  cost  of 
construction  and  subsequent  additions  and  extensions,  the  cost  of  re- 
production new,  and  the  present  value  of  the  same  are  the  only  satis- 
factory evidences  which  can  be  adduced  bearing  upon  the  question. 
These  factors  form  a  fairly  reliable  basis  for  the  deduction  as  to  the  fair 
value  of  the  physical  property.  However,  in  weighing  these  various 
factors  consideration  must  be  given  to  all  the  facts  and  circumstances 
surrounding  the  same,  and  neither  of  the  factors  mentioned  is  controlling 
or  determinative  in  reaching  a  final  conclusion,  although  some  may  have 
greater  probative  effect  under  all  the  circumstances  than  others.  City  of 
Appleton  V.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  219. 

Average  or  normal  costs. 

66.  Average  or  normal  costs  are  not  always  easily  determined,  and 
this  for  the  reason  that  the  prices  of  the  various  elements  that  enter  into 
this  cost  vary  very  greatly  from  time  to  time.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  638-640. 

67.  Normal  costs  may  be  said  to  include  all  reasonable  outlays  that 
are  necessary  to  obtain  a  needed  plant  and  a  business  for  this  plant. 
It  does  not  cover  abnormal  items  such  as  excessive  and  unnecessary 
charges  of  any  kind;  nor  capitalized  monopoly  profits,  future  growth, 
excessive  development  costs  and  other  items  of  this  nature.  City  of 
Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  85. 

Basis  of  unit  prices. 

68.  Any  fair  appraisement  must  rest  upon  normal  prices.  Also  any 
measure  of  rates  should  be  permanent  for  a  reasonable  length  of  time, 
otherwise  it  would  be  entirely  impracticable.  •  If  the  standard  by  which 
the  reasonableness  of  charges  is  to  be  determined  should  fluctuate  with 
the  market  prices  of  material,  labor  and  land,  no  schedule  of  rates  could  be 
established  for  any  length  of  time,  for,  under  the  circumstances,  a  rate 
that  would  be  reasonable  today  might  be  very  unreasonable  tomorrow. 
The  principles  of  the  law  applicable- to  the  subject  certainly  involve  no 
such  absurd  consequences.  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  228-229;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  228,  238;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
187,  211. 

69.  The  prices  prevailing  for  a  single  year  or  prices  based  upon  an 
existing  contract,  cannot  be  as  just  as  those  based  on  an  average  for  a 
number  of  years.     City   of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  El.  JL,t.  Co.,  1910, 

6  R.  C.  132,  139. 

70.  Whether  the  prices  should  be  based  on  a  ten  year  average, 
five  year,  two  year,  or  one  year  average,  may  properly  be  a  matter  for 
consideration  but  in  view  of  the  facts  as  regards  the  variation  of  current 
prices  from  month  to  month,  it  does  not  appear  just  or  reasonable  to 
allow  current  prices  to  govern  in  the  determination  of  value,  either  for 
the  purpose  of  sale  or  rate  making.     In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911, 

7  R.  C.  71,  85. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 501 

Cost  of  reproduction  new. 

71.  We  have  carefully  considered  the  matter  of  valuation  and  the 
various  elements  that  should  be  taken  into  account  as  decided  by  the 
court.  Our  conclusion  is  so  near  to  the  cost  of  reproduction  new,  that 
we  have  concluded  to  adopt  that  valuation,  not  because  it  happens  to  be 
made  on  any  particular  basis,  but  because  it  is  equivalent  to  a  composite 
value  arrived  at  after  taking  into  account  the  various  elements  suggested 
by  the  court.  (Smythe  v.  Ames,  169,  U.  S.  466.)  Buell  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  324,  479-481. 

72.  While  the  cost  of  reproduction  new  is  not  likely  to  correspond 
to  the  cost  of  constructing  the  plant,  there  are  many  reasons  for  believing 
that  the  figures  in  the  two  cases  are  not  likely  to  be  very  far  apart.  What- 
ever difference  there  may  be  in  this  respect,  is  likely  to  be  at  least  partly 
due  to  such  changes  as  have  taken  place  in  the  prices  of  material  and  labor 
between  the  time  of  construction  and  the  time  'of  appraisal.  In  re  Appl. 
Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  163,  167. 

73.  The  cost  of  reproduction  new,  if  based  upon  normal  prices 
carefully  compiled,  and  if,  in  addition  to  this,  due  consideration  is  given 
to  the  various  other  factors  that  may  affect  the  value,  is  likely  to  be  of 
material  aid  in  determining  a  valuation  of  the  physical  property  of  a 
plant  for  rate-making  purposes  that  is  fair  to  all  concerned.  In  fact, 
it  is  usually  the  most  important  factor  in  this  connection  that  can  be 
obtained.     Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  640. 

74.  The  cost  of  reproduction  of  the  physical  property  of  a  plant, 
while  of  the  greatest  importance  to  that  end,  is  not  the  only  element 
that  should  be  considered  in  determining  the  fair  value  when  questions 
of  rates  are  involved.  The  cost  of  reproduction  constitutes  -^^aluable 
evidence  of  the  amount  upon  which  investors  are  entitled  to  reasonable 
returns,  but  it  does  not  furnish  the  only  evidence  of  this  amount,  even 
insofar  as  the  physical  parts  alone  of  the  plants  are  concerned.  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  555. 

Contingencies  during  construction. 


See  post,  103-106. 

^— —     Continuous  construction. 

75.  The  utility  maintains  that  from  10  to  15  per  cent  should  be  added 
to  the  value  of  the  physical  property  because  continuous  construction 
under  contract  is  less  expensive  than  piecemeal  construction.  Some 
consideration  should  be  given  this  item  in  determining  the  fair  value  of 
the  utility,  but  it  does  not  seem  that  it  can  be  properly  considered  as  an 
element  in  determining  the  cost  of  reproducing  the  physical  plant.  In  re 
Purchase  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  13  R.  C.  452,  461. 

Depreciation. 


76.  The  contention  of  the  company,  that  the  original  cost  of  certain 
units  of  the  plant  should  have  been  accepted  by  the  engineers  as  the  proper 
value  of  the  same,  is  without  any  reasonable  basis  for  support,  since 
original  cost  and  present  value  are  not  the  same.  In  re  Cashton  Lt.  Sc  P. 
Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  78-79. 


502 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED.— Continued 

Physical    property — Cost    of   reproduction    new — Depreciation. 

77.  The  company's  contention  that  because  the  property  is  a  con- 
tinuous property  which  will  probably  never  be  entirely  scrapped  at  one 
time,  it  should  be  considered  that  there  has  been  no  element  of  deprecia- 
tion which  should  be  deducted  from  the  cost  of  reproduction,  is  not  tenable. 
The  best  evidence  as  to  physical  depreciation  in  the  present  case  is  the 
valuation  made  by  the  engineering  staff  with  the  modification  noted.  In 
re  Purchase  Janesville  Water  Wks.  Plant,  1915,  15  R.  C.  674,  695. 

— —     Depreciation  reserve. 

78.  As  under  normal  conditions  investors  are  entitled  to  have  their 
property  or  investment  kept  intact,  it  follows  that  the  amounts,  which 
have  been  properly  set  aside  for  such  purposes,  or  for  depreciation  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  law  and  the  rules  of  the  Commission, 
should  in  the  instant  case  be  included  in  the  amount  upon  which  returns 
are  allowed.  On  the  other  hand,  amounts  earned  for  depreciation  but 
withdrawn  or  used  for  other  purposes  than  provided  by  law  should  not 
be  so  included.  Superior  Comm^l  Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  Street  Ry.  Co., 
1912,  11  R.  C.  1,  21. 

79.  The  failure  of  a  utility  to  make  allowance  for  depreciation  if  the 
earnings  have  been  sufficient  is  tantamount  to  a  withdrawal  of  capital 
from  the  business  and  the  cost  of  reproduction  new  must  be  diminished 
in  determining  the  fair  value  upon  which  the  reasonable  return  allowed  is 
to  be  based  when  an  adequate  reserve  for  depreciation  has  not  been  pro- 
vided. The  utility  is  however  entitled  to  earn  an  amount  sufficient  to 
offset  future  depreciation.  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co., 
1914, 14  R.  C.  350,  364. 

80.  The  effect  of  including  in  the  cost  new  the  large  recent  investments 
in  property  against  which  practically  no  depreciation  can  yet  be  considered 
to  have  accrued,  will  obviously  be  to  increase  the  ratio  between  present 
value  and  cost  new.  Theoretically,  at  least,  the  difference  between  these 
values  should  be  in  the  assets  offsetting  the  depreciation  reserve,  in  order 
to  preserve  the  property  and  the  investments  represented  by  it.  The  best 
modern  practice  makes  at  least  some  provision  in  advance  by  building  up 
a  depreciation  reserve  year  by  year  to  meet  the  requirements  for  renewals 
and  replacements  which  are  very  sure  to  become  necessary  sooner  or  later 
through  one  cause  or  another.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  1,  44,  45. 

81.  When  large  expenditures  are  made  for  renewals  the  following 
results  may  actually  occur.  The  equipment,  whose  replacement  is  im- 
minent, is  valued  by  physical  appraisal  methods  and  goes  into  the  inven- 
tory at  its  minimum  service  value.  Its  value,  insofar  as  the  physical 
appraisal  is  concerned,  remains  at  a  point  above  the  residual  or  scrap 
value  until  renewal  transpires.  Hence,  the  present  value  of  the  property 
as  a  whole  is  apparently  higher  than  it  would  be  were  such  equipment 
considered  valueless.  It  is  clear,  that  in  such  cases  the  utility  has  the 
benefit  of  a  high  present  value  before  the  replacement  is  made  instead  of 
suffering  a  shrinkage  afterward.  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  C.  227,  233,  234. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities  503 


Discounts  on  bonds. 


82.  Whether  discount  on  bonds  is  a  legitimate  cost  to  be  included  in 
the  cost  of  construction,  will  perhaps  depend  upon  the  circumstances  in 
each  particular  case.  If  the  utility  is  needed  and  the  capital  for  it  can 
be  had  on  no  better  terms,  then  it  is  difficult  to  see  on  what  ground  such 
discounts  should  not  be  included  in  the  cost  of  the  plant.  To  so  include 
it  has  been  and  is  the  almost  universal  practice.  Hill  et  al.  u.  Antigo 
Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  647;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  639;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City  Water  Co.  of  Marinette, 

1911,  8  R.  C.  334,  342-343;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co., 

1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  155-157;  Superior  Comm't  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt. 
&  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  740-741,  802-803;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1,  51;  In  re  Purchase  Janesville  Water  Wks.  Plant, 
1915,  15  R.  C.  674,  690. 

83.  In  some  instances  utilities  sell  their  bonds  above  par,  in  other 
cases,  again,  below  par  and  in  still  other  instances  at  par.  The  variation 
in  prices  in  such  cases  usually  depends  on  monetary  conditions  and  on 
the  rate  of  interest  which  the  bonds  bear.  Under  such  conditions  an 
equilibrium  might  be  established  by  charging  the  construction  account 
with  all  discounts  on  bonds  and  crediting  it  with  all  premiums  above  par. 
Such  methods  of  dealing  with  this- matter  would  seem  fair,  and  there  are 
companies  by  which  it  has  been  adopted.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  647. 

84.  Where  a  portion  of  the  bond  issue  amounts  to  a  refunding  issue, 
and  a  considerable  part  of  the  remaining  portion  takes  the  place  of  current 
liabilities,  it  does  not  seem  proper  to  include  the  total  amount  of  the  dis- 
count on  bonds  in  the  valuation  of  the  plant  for  rate-making  purposes, 
although  some  additions  to  the  amount  of  the  physical  value  should  be 
made  because  of  discounts.  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  C.  236,  253;  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  C.  325, 
332-333. 

Engineering, 

85.  The  total  cost  of  engineering  to  a  company  is  likely  to  be  lower 
for  extensions  than  for  the  original  part  of  the  plant,  for  the  reason  that 
such  extensions  are  often  planned  and  supervised  by  the  officers  of  the 
company  who  are  drawing  regular  salaries  which  are  charged  to  the  operat- 
ing expenses.  In  other  words,  the  plants  are  in  this  way  extended  without 
any  additional  cost  for  engineering.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Mad- 
ison Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  541;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sz 
W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  13-14. 

86.  Every  aggressive  and  progressive  utility  is  constantly  called  upon 
to  make  additions  in  order  to  adapt  itself  to  the  changing  needs  of  the 
community  served.  The  determination  of  these  changes  is  within  the 
legitimate  scope  of  the  general  officers'  duties,  so  that  an  allowance  of 
5  per  cent  on  the  total  value  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  that 
of  liberality.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  6c  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  14;  City 
of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry,  6c  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  353,  360. 


504 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 

Physical  propierty — Cost  of  reproduction  new — Engineering,  etc., 
during  construction. 

See  post,  103-106. 

Flowage  rights. 

87.  What  value  should  be  placed  on  the  flowage  right  or  what  has 
been  spent  in  its  development  by  the  company,  the  applicant  does  not 
show.  If  this  flowage  has  a  value  which  belongs  to  the  applicant,  and  if 
unavoidable  expense  has  been  borne  by  the  applicant  in  developing  the 
flow  of  the  river  so  that  it  may  be  economically  used  for  the  production 
of  power,  then  consideration  should  probably  be  given  to  such  value  or 
investment  to  which  the  company  is  entitled.  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar 
Valley  EL  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  717,  723. 

Free  house  piping. 

88.  Expenditures  for  the  development  of  the  business,  such  as  free 
house  piping,  when  reasonable  and  when  well  placed,  would  seem  to  be 
legitimate  and  to  constitute  a  charge  that,  in  some  form,  should  be  borne 
by  the  customers  or  by  those  who  avail  themselves  of  the  services  in  ques- 
tion. Whether  these  expenditures  should  be  charged  to  construction  and 
thereby  become  a  permanent  charge  on  the  consumers,  or  be  charged  to 
the  operating  expenses,  and  thereby  be  wiped  out  about  as  incurred,  are 
questions  that  cannot  be  settled  independently  of  the  surrounding  con- 
ditions. State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4 
R.  C.  501,  589;  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  C.  704,  736-737. 

Improved  facilities. 


89.  It  appears  that  the  so-called  "booster  system,"  a  system  of  high 
pressure  transmission  of  gas  devised  by  the  respondent  in  the  instant  case 
and  installed  by  it  in  place  of  the  ordinary  low  pressure  system  previously 
used,  has  resulted  in  some  saving  of  investment  for  the  utility.  It  seems 
reasonable  that  the  unusual  skill  and  foresight  exercised  by  the  utility 
should  receive  some  reward.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  the  entire  esti- 
mated saving  should  accrue  to  the  utility,  for  the  consumer  would  thereby 
be  denied  any  share  in  the  progress  of  the  industry.  City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
Milwaukee  Gas.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  441,  453-454. 

Interest  during  construction. 


See  also  post,  103-106. 

90.  Interest  on  the  cost  during  the  period  of  construction  would  seem 
to  be  one  of  the  necessary  elements  that  should  be  included  in  the  total 
cost  of  the  plant.  This  cost  is  recognized  as  one  of  the  regular  expenses, 
not  only  of  construction  work  during  the  construction  period,  but  of 
operation  after  the  plant  has  begun  to  do  business.  It  is  an  item  that 
cannot  be  eliminated  from  any  undertaking  where  money  or  capital  is 
needed.    Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  646. 

91.  The  element  of  interest  during  construction,  theoretically,  is  the 
current  rate  for  the  use  of  each  item  of  the  outlays  during  the  time  which 
intervenes  between  each  such  outlay  and  the  date  of  the  completion  of  the 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 505 

plant  up  to  the  point  of  operation.  The  sum  of  these  charges,  however, 
is  the  minimum  amount  that  should  be  allowed  as  interest  during  construc- 
tion. State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C. 
501,  543;  City  ofRiponv.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  14-15. 

———     — —     Investment  for  anticipated  needs. 


92.  From  the  facts  brought  out  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  investment 
in  the  physical  property  of  the  plant  is  both  actually  and  relatively 
somewhat  greater  than  the  amount  that  is  ordinarily  required  for  such 
demands  upon  the  plants  as  are  made  by  its  customers  in  this  case.  In 
fact,  the  situation  in  this  respect  is  such  that  it  is  far  from  clear  whether 
it  would  be  equitable  to  all  concerned  to  fix  rates  in  this  case,  the  receipts 
from  which  will  cover  operating  expenses,  and,  in  addition  to  this,  a 
return  for  interest,  profit  and  depreciation  on  the  entire  cost  of  reproduction 
of  the  plant  at  as  high  rates  as  those  which  might  ordinarily  be  regarded 
as  adequate  in  cities  of  this  size.  This  statement  is  made  advisedly, 
for  it  is  obvious  that  operators  are  entitled  to  reasonable  latitudes  in 
such  matters  and  that  it  is  sometimes  exceedingly  difficult  to  accurately 
determine  future  demands.  Cily  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911, 
6  R.  C.  228,  286. 

93.  In  determining  the  basis  for  reasonable  rates  some  consideration 
should  be  given  as  to  the  investment  necessary  for  an  adequate  plant. 
What  may  appear  to  be  reasonable  rates  when  the  investment  line  has 
fallen  below  the  business  line,  may  prove  to  be  much  lower  than  sufficient 
to  produce  a  revenue  which  will  give  a  reasonable  return  upon  the  invest- 
ment a  year  or  a  few  years  later  when  the  investment  will  have  to  be 
materially  increased  in  order  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  business.  (City 
of  Beloit  V.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  298.)  It  does  not 
appear  equitable,  however,  to  make  present  consumers  bear  the  entire 
burden  of  future  additions.  It  appears  proper  to  make  slight  additions 
to  the  unit  costs,  but  proper  allowances  must  necessarily  be  made  for 
such  additonal  business  which  is  anticipated  when  the  extension  is  made. 
Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G. 
704,  749-750. 

Land. 


94.  The  law  as  well  as  our  sbcial  system  recognizes  gains  due  to 
appreciation  in  practically  all  other  undertakings  and  the.  owners  would 
have  to  bear  losses  in  case  land  and  other  property  had  depreciated 
instead  of  appreciated.  It  would  seem  only  just  that  the  rule  should 
work  both  ways.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910, 
4  R.  C.  501,  579;  Superior  Comml.  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  <&  P.  Co., 
1912,.  10  R.  G.  704,  739. 

95.  As  a  basis  of  valuation  for  rate  adjustments,  special  or  additional 
value  cannot  be  assigned  to  a  piece  of  land  upon  which  the  utility  wells  are 
located  because  of  the  proximity  of  the  underground  stream  to  the  surface 
of  the  land  and  consequent  reduced  excavation  necessary,  where  a  large 
portion  of  the  preliminary  work  for  the  location  of  such  favorable  land 
has  been  paid  for  by  the  city  and  the  land  purchased  in  the  open  market 
and  without  competition.  The  utility  should  not  be  permitted  to  attach 
a  special  value  for  capital  purposes  to  expenditures  which  represent  no 


506 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

more  than  the  expression  of  that  reasonable  intelUgence  and  good  judgment 
of  utihty  officers  and  directors  which  the  stockholders  and  the  public 
have  a  right  to  expect.  City  of  Rip  on  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
1,  12-13. 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 

Physical  property — Cost  of  reproduction  new — Land. 

96.  If  real  estate  has  enhanced  to  such  an  extent  that  a  return  upon 
its  value  would  be  in  excess  of  the  reasonable  value  of  the  use  for  the 
purposes  to  which  it  is  devoted,  the  excess  value  should  be  treated  as 
surplus  and  not  as  a  part  of  the  investment  upon  which  the  public  is 
required  to  compensate  the  owner  for  the  service  of  the  property.  (Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  v.  San  Francisco,  1908,  165,  Fed.  667;  Capital  City  Gas 
Light  Co.  v.  Des  Moines,  1896,  72  Fed.  829,  844;  Boise  City  I  &  L.  Co.  v. 
Clark,  1904,  131  Fed.  415;  Cons.  Gas  Co.  v.  New  York,  1907,  157  Fed. 
849,  854;  Wilcox  v.  Consolidated  Gas  Co.,  1909,  212  U.  S.  52.)  City  of 
Appleton  V.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  224-225. 

97.  It  does  not  seem  clear  that  the  lands  granted  for  right  of  way 
purposes  should  be  considered  in  the  establishment  of  a  fair  value  of 
respondent's  plant  and  business  as  a  basis  for  rates.  The  facts  at  the 
present  time  seem  to  indicate  that  to  allow  a  return  on  any  value  which 
may  be  placed  upon  these  grants  would  hardly  be  fair.  Superior  Comml. 
Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  Street  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  1,  15-16. 

Legal  services,  etc.,  during  construction. 

See  post,  103-106. 

Losses  of  purely  physical  value  due  to  consolidations. 

98.  The  applicant  contended  that  increased  valuation  is  justified  in 
cases  where  competing  utilities  consolidate  and  thus  secure  cheaper 
operating  conditions  because  severe  losses  of  purely  physical  value  in- 
evitably occur  in  making  such  consolidations.  This  contention  seems  to 
rest  upon  the  assumption  that  all  physical  construction  costs  and  all  costs 
of  operation  are  proper  elements  upon  which  rates  should  be  predicated, 
and  that  a  utility  is  unquestionably  entitled  to  a  return  for  all  its  operating 
expenses  and  earnings  on  at  least  the  reconstruction  cost.  While  this 
assumption  is  in  the  main  true  under  normal  conditions,  if  the  costs  of 
operation  are  high  because  of  unusual  inefficiency  of  operation  or  if  the 
investment  is  high  because  of  equipment  and  work  clearly  unnecessary, 
it  is  apparent  that  equitable  rates  cannot  be  based  thereon.  In  re  Appl. 
La  Crosse  G.  &  El  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138,  171-174. 


Meters. 


99.  The  mere  fact  that  the  meters  in  this  instance  register  in  dollars 
and  cents  instead  of  in  cubic  feet,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  valid  reason 
for  excluding  them  from  the  valuation.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W. 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  12. 

Nonoperating  property. 


100.  Property  that  is  no  longer  used  or  useful  for  service  must  be 
eliminated  from  the  valuation.  The  statute  limits  the  scope  of  the 
investigation  to  ascertaining  the  value  of  the  active  property  of  the 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 507 

utility.  (Wis.  Stats.,  sec.  1797/7?-5.)  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  Water 
Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  240;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  P. 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  397,  406. 

101.  Under  certain  circumstances,  where  equipment  not  actively 
part  of  the  producing  plant  has  been  retained  to  serve  as  emergency  or 
reserve  units,  it  would  seem  proper  to  include  this  amount  as  part  of  the 
property  used  and  useful  in  the  furnishing  of  public  service.  In  re  Appl. 
Darlington  El.  Lt.  <k  W.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  397,  406. 

102.  When  nonoperating  property  may  be  disposed  of  without 
affecting  the  business,  the  only  warrant  for  its  retention  is  expected 
savings  and  additional  net  income.  This  being  the  case,  an  addition  to 
the  physical  value  of  the  plant  for  nonoperating  property  can  be  justified 
for  rate-making  purposes  only  when  the  income  expected  therefrom  is 
added  to  the  actual  income  or  is  deducted  from  the  operating  expenses. 
In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138,  164-165. 

Overhead  expenses. 

103.  The  amount  for  a  percentage  allowance  to  cover  interest  during 
construction,  engineering  contingencies,  etc.  has  frequently  been  made  a 
matter  of  dispute  and  is  a  controverted  point  in  the  present  case.  In 
previous  decisions  as  to  the  appraised  value  of  property  involved  in  cases 
relating  to  compensation  at  time  of  purchase,  valuation  for  stocks  and 
bonds  and  for  reasonable  rates,  the  addition  has  not  exceeded  12  per  cent 
of  the  priced  inventory.  {Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  W.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C. 
623,  685;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  v.  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C. 
501,  540;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  482,  500.)  In 
general  this  percentage  consists  of  four  items:  4  per  cent  for  engineering 
and  superintendence;  2  per  cent  for  organization  and  legal  expenses; 
3  per  cent  for  interest  during  construction,  and  3  per  cent  for  contingencies. 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  118-119. 

104.  The  ordinary  allowance  is  12  per  cent,  but  experience  has  shown 
that  in  the  case  of  municipal  plants  less  is  required  for  these  purposes, 
and  the  facts  would  indicate  that  even  less  than  10  per  cent  was  required 
in  the  present  case.  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
731,  744. 

105.  Twelve  per  cent  added  to  cover  overhead  expenses.  City  of 
Ripon  V.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  15.  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine 
Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  243;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sz 
El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  353,  360;  In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  71,  88;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187, 
237;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138,  157-159. 

106.  Fifteen  per  cent  added  to  cover  overhead  expenses.  In  re 
Purchase  Oshkosh  W.  Wks.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  602,  607,  661;  In  re  Appl. 
Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  325,  332;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  40;  721,  733. 


aving. 


107.  No  allowance  should  be  made  for  an  item  of  paving,  which  may 
be  properly  a  part  of  the  cost  of  reproduction  new,  but  which  is  not  a  part 
of  the  company's  property  devoted  to  the  public  use,  for  the  reason  that 
the  company  did  not  actually  cut  through  this  paving  in  constructing  its 


508 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities _^ 

system.  Insofar  as  paving  has  actually  been  cut  through  in  making  re- 
pairs, extensions  or  renewals,  and  the  expense  of  this  cutting  has  not  been 
previously  charged  to  other  accounts,  it  may  properly  be  included  in  a 
valuation  of  the  property.  {Cedar  Rapids  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Cedar  Rapids 
et  al  1909,  120  N.  W.  fla.]  966,  970.)  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water 
Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  307;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas 
&  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  554-555;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  6c  W. 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  10;  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  275;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  & 
Ltg.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  302,  316-317;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910, 
5R.  C.  482,  492-493;  In  re  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  97, 
121-122;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  240,  241; 
In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  77,  88-89;  City  of  Beloit  v. 
Beloit  W.  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  233;  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis. 
Tr.  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  477,  480;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  Sc 
El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  162-163;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 
Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  115-116;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  309,  312;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12 
R.  G.  441,  453;  In  re  Purchase  Oshkosh  W.  Wks.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
602,  662;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100, 
104-105;  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13 
R.  G.  178.  233;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  38. 

a.    ELEMENTS   CONSIDERED. — Continued 

Physical    property — Cost    of   reproductioil    new — Piecemeal    con- 
struction. 

108.  While  there  are  conditions  which  tend  to  increase  the  cost  under 
piecemeal  construction,  there  also  appear  to  be  certain  factors  which  may 
have  the  opposite  effect.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc 
El  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  549;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  EL  Co., 

1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  241. 

—     Property  acquired  through  gift. 

109.  The  law  requires  the  Gommission  to  value  all  the  property  used 
and  useful  for  the  convenience  of  the  public.  It  says  nothing  about  de- 
ducting the  value  of  the  property  owned  by  a  company,  but  originally 
donated  to  it.  For  purposes  of  proceedings  like  those  herein,  the  Utilities 
Law  does  not  inquire  into  the  manner  in  which  property  of  utility  corpora- 
tions devoted  to  the  public  use  was  originally  obtained,  whether  by  pur- 
chase, inheritance,  gift  or  theft.  The  law  simply  compels  the  Gommission 
to  value  this  property,  and  to  consider  this  valuation  in  taking  ofTicial 
action  with  respect  to  rates  and  service.  Tighe  et  al.  v.  Clinton  Tel.  Co., 
1908,  3  R.  G.  117,  126;  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G. 
273,  306;  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  215, 
239. 


Service  connections. 


110.  The  contention  that  the  service  connections,  the  cost  of  which 
had  been  met  by  the  consumers,  should  not  be  included  in  the  value  of  the 
plant,  would  seem  to  be  well  taken.  It  would  hardly  be  fair  to  make  the 
consumers  pay  interest  and  perhaps  other  costs  on  property  for  which 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 509 

they  had  met  all  the  charges.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
623,  693;  City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  305- 
306;  City  of  Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  74,  92; 
City  ofBeloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  215;  Alter  et  al.  v. 
City  of  Manitowoc,  1912,  10  R.  C.  387,  394;  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  & 
Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  452;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  721,  731. 

111.  We  do  not  believe  that  expenditures  made  for  service  connections 
and  paid  for  by  the  respondent  should  be  excluded  from  the  valuation  and 
do  not  find  that  the  title  of  the  respondent  to  such  services  is  inconsistent 
with  the  separate  ownership  of  the  premises  in  which  the  services  were 
constructed,  wholly  or  in  part.  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  11:  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sz  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
187,  222;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  636; 
Alter  et  al.  v.  City  of  Manitowoc,  1912,  10  R.  G.  387,  394. 

Superintendence. 

See  also  ante,  103-106. 

112.  In  giving  the  financial  condition  of  its  plant  to  show  valuation 
the  respondent  included  an  item  for  manager's  salary  which  was  not  in 
fact  paid.  The  operating  ratio  of  the  plant  as  compared  with  other  plants 
{City  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  273,  282) 
suggests  that  a  suflficiently  large  sum  has  been  charged  for  management. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  testimony  to  show  that  the  persons  regularly 
employed  were  not  fully  competent  to  operate  the  plant  without  any 
additional  superintendence,  nor  that  the  amount  so  charged  is  not  gener- 
ally sufficient  to  secure  whatever  managerial  ability  is  required  in  the  opera- 
tion of  a  plant  of  this  size.  The  additional  item,  which  was  not  in  fact  paid, 
is  therefore  excluded  from  all  calculations  of  the  Gommission  regarding 
the  financial  results  of  operation  of  respondent's  plant.  City  of  Washburn 
V.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  74,  81-82. 


Working  capital. 

113.  Something  in  the  way  of  working  capital,  is  always  required  by 
public  utilities.  If  it  is  not  owned  by  the  company,  it  must  be  oflset  by 
credits  or  money  borrowed.  In  either  case  the  working  capital  constitutes 
a  part  of  the  cost  of  operation  and  must  therefore  be  considered  in  determ- 
ining the  value  of  the  plant  for  rate-making  purposes.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo 
Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  691;  In  re  Menominee  and  Marinette  Lt.  & 
Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  799;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison 
Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  551-552;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa 
Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  302,  316;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit 
W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  2^2;  ^  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v. 
Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  745-747;  City  of  Green  Bay  v. 
Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  236,  242;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  G. 
Lt.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  309,  313;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  721,  734. 

1 14.  Where  collections  are  made  quarterly"  a  rather  large  amount  of 
working  capital  is  usually  necessary.  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W. 
Co.,  1913.  11  R.  G.  236,  253-254. 


510  Valuation. — -Of  property  of  public  utilities    

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED.— Continued 

Physical  property — Cost  of  reproduction  ne^v — Working  capital. 

115.  Where  the  current  is  purchased,  large  generating  expenses  such 
as  coal  and  labor  are  eliminated,  reducing  the  amount  of  capital  .which  it 
is  necessary  to  have  available.  This  is  also  true  of  power  plant  supplies. 
In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  350,  364. 

116.  The  electric  railway  is  unlike  the  water,  gas,  and  telephone  utihty 
in  that  it  has  no  monthly  bills  but  receives  a  large  portion  of  its  transporta- 
tion revenues  daily.  The  electric  railway  also  has  the  advantage  of  sell- 
ing a  part  of  its  transportation  service  in  advance  in  the  form  of  blocks 
of  tickets  or  mileage  books.  The  money  as  received  is  at  the  company's 
disposal  as  working  capital  prior  to  the  time  when  it  is  necessary  for  cur- 
rent expenses.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G. 
1,  157-158;  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  Street  Ry.  Co.,  1912, 
11  R.  C.  1,  21-22. 

Original  cost. 

117.  The  original  cost  is  an  important  item  in  the  valuation  of  public 
utilities.  When  it  includes  only  proper  charges,  and  when  there  have  been 
no  unnecessary  wastes  or  mistakes  of  such  character  that  no  one  but  the 
owners  should  be  held  responsible  for  them,  then  the  original  cost  of  con- 
struction would  seem  to  represent  the  investment  that  has  been  made  in 
the  physical  property  of  the  plant.  Investments,  made  under  such  condi- 
tions are  certainly  entitled  to  a  great  deal  of  consideration,  especially 
when  the  plants  are  valued  for  rate-making  purposes.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo 
Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  631-632;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  557,  558;  City  of  Racine  v. 
Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  228,  285;  In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  C.  71,  74;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C. 
187,  354;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  138,  170-171; 
In  re  Purchase  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  13  R.  C.  452,  461-462. 

s  118.  As  a  basis  for  computing  the  additional  interest  charges  the  cost 
of  reproduction  new  seems  inequitable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  more 
valuable  part  of  the  city's  property  outside  its  limits  was  turned  over  to  it 
without  charge  by  the  consumers  served.  It  does  not  seem  just  for  the 
city  to  charge  interest  on  that  part  of  the  property  which  was  obtained 
gratis  from  consumers  affected.  The  additional  interest  allowance  on  the 
property  outside  the  city  has  accordingly  been  computed  upon  a  valuation 
based  on  the  cost  incurred  by  the  city  in  acquiring  its  lines  outside  the 
limits.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  693;  City  of  Ripon 
v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  11 ;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc 
Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  260,  299-300. 


Present  value. 

119.  While  the  cost  of  reproduction  new  is  ordinarily  one  of  the.  im- 
portant, if  not  the  most  important,  elements  that  enter  into  that  valuation 
upon  which  the  earnings  should  be  based,  there  may  also  be  instances  when 
the  cost  of  reproduction  new  less  depreciation,  which  represents  the  present 
value  of  public  utilities,  may  bear  a  close  relation  to  the  valuation  in  ques- 
tion.   Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  640-641. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 511 

120.  In  the  appraisal  of  all  property  which  is  subject  to  deterioration 
with  use,  it  is  necessary  not  only  to  determine  the  cost  of  reproduction, 
but  also  its  value  as  it  exists  at  the  date  of  appraisal,  or,  in  other  words, 
its  present  or  existing  value.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  187,  235. 

— —     As  affected  by  depreciation  from  crenothrix. 


121.  It  would  appear  that  the  presence  of  crenothrix  and  its  probable 
future  increase  are  elements  properly  considered  in  determining  the  value 
of  the  utility  for  rate-making  purposes.  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  <Sc 
El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  187,  299. 

Reorganization  expenses. 

122.  In  the  present  case  reorganization  expenses  received  considera- 
tion in  the  appraisal.  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  & 
P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  739. 

Taxable  value. 

123.  The  appraised  value  for  purposes  of  taxation  may  lead  to  errone- 
ous conclusions  when  used  as  a  basis  for  rate  making.  Such  values  are 
frequently  based  upon  net  earnings  or  the  ability  of  the  company  to  carry 
a  portion  of  the  general  burden  of  taxation  and  involve  a  capitalization 
of  net  profits,  even  though  such  profits  arise  from  excessive  rates.  City 
of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  63-64. 

Unearned  increment. 

124.  It  is  true  that  such  elements  of  value  as  the  natural  increase  in 
the  value  of  land  and  such  increases  in  other  property  as  may  be  caused 
by  rising  prices  of  labor  and  material,  may  not  be  offset  by  actual  outlays 
on  the  part  of  the  owners  of  such  plants;  that  to  include  such  items  in  the 
valuation  may,  in  a  sense,  amount  to  a  capitalization  of  unearned  incre- 
ments; and  that  there  may  be  some  question  as  to  whether  this  is  equitable 
as  between  company  and  consumers.  There  is  much,  however,  to  be  said 
on  the  other  side  of  this  question.  That  the  law  as  well  as  our  social  system 
recognizes  such  gains  in  practically  all  other  undertakings,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  rents  and  interest  charges  usually  vary  with  the  natural 
increase  in  the  value  of  the  property  they  cover.  As  the  cost  of  reproduc- 
tion of  a  plant  usually  plays  perhaps  the  most  important  part  in  determin- 
ing its  value,  it  is  more  than  likely  that  the  owners  would  have  to  bear 
losses  in  case  land  and  other  property  had  depreciated  instead  of  appreci- 
ated. It  would  seem  only  just  that  the  rule  should  work  both  ways.  State 
Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  579. 

125.  If  real  estate  has  enhanced  to  such  an  extent  that  a  return  upon 
its  value  would  be  in  excess  of  the  reasonable  value  of  the  use  for  the  pur- 
poses to  which  it  is  devoted,  the  excess  value  should  be  treated  as  surplus 
and  not  as  a  part  of  the  investment  upon  which  the  pubhc  is  required  to 
compensate  the  owner  for  the  service  of  the  property.  {Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  V.  San  Francisco,  1908,  165  Fed.  667;  Capital  City  Gas  Light  Co.  v. 
Des  Moines,  1896,  72  Fed.  829,  844;  Boise  City  I.  Sc  L.  Co.  v.  Clark  1904. 
131  Fed.  415;  Cons.  Gas  Co.  v.  New  York,  1907,  157  Fed.  849,  854; 
Wilcox  V.  Consolidated  Gas  Co.,  1909,  212  U.  S.  52.  City  of  Appleton  v. 
Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  215,  224-225. 


512 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

a.    ELEMENTS    CONSIDERED. — Continued 

Unpaid  rent  on  water  power  lease. 

126.  It  is  contended  that  the  unpaid  rent  due  upon  a  water  power 
lease  held  by  the  utiUty  should  be  included  in  the  compensation  fixed  by 
the  Commission  as  a  part  of  the  value  of  the  lease.  The  indebtedness  in 
question  was  an  obligation  of  the  utility  and  the  city  was  authorized  to 
acquire  only  the  property  of  the  company  actually  used  and  useful  for  the 
convenience  of  the  public.  The  utility  can  have  no  property  in  its  debts. 
In  re  AppL  Kaukauna  G.  EL  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  189,  191. 

Water  power  rights. 

127.  That,  as  a  rule,  water  powers  have  some  value  that  should  be 
considered  in  appraisals  of  the  kind  in  question  here,  may  be  admitted, 
but  there  are  wide  differences  of  opinion  as  to  what  these  values  amount 
to.    Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Milling  cfc  El.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139,  146. 

128.  The  title  of  the  owners  in  utility  business  to  the  entire  savings 
due  to  use  of  water  power  instead  of  steam  power  has  not  been  clearly 
demonstrated.  To  preclude  the  public  from  any  share  in  economical  meth- 
ods of  service  and  to  place  upon  consumers  the  burden  of  maximum  costs 
of  operation  results  in  costs  that  are  not  dependent  upon  reasonable  effici- 
ency, normal  investments  and  local  advantages.  The  welfare  of  the  utility 
requires  that  mutual  benefit  arise  from  supplying  the  public  from  natural 
power.  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Llg.  Co.  1912,  9  R.  G.  406, 
424,  426;  In  re  AppL  Rhinelander  P.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  783,  809. 

b.    METHODS   OF    APPRAISAL. 

Determination  of  earning  value. 

129.  Earning  values  are  usually  determined  by  capitalizing  net  earn- 
ings, or  by  comparisons,  which  amount  to  about  the  same  thing,  and  such 
values  can  hardly  be  equitable  for  rate-making  purposes.  Hill  et  al.  v. 
Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  717. 

Determination  of  going  value. 

130.  In  estimating  going  value  it  may  be  considered  as  consisting  of 
all  net  losses  on  operation,  less  the  offsets  for  years  showing  surpluses, 
that  have  been  incurred  since  the  plant  was  completed  and  ready  for 
service.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  707,  727,  744- 
745;  Citij  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  123,  130; 
City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  441,  462. 

131.  Engineers  have  endeavored  to  measure  the  demerit  of  '"going 
value"  in  various  ways,  all  of  which  tend  to  enlighten  the  judgment,  al- 
though none  of  the  methods  employed  are  conclusive.  In  re  Cashton 
Light  &  Power  Co. ,190S,  3  R.C.e>7,8A-95;  In  re  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co., 
1910,  6  R.  C.  97,  120. 

132.  The  methods  to  be  followed  in  fixing  the  allowance  which  should 
be  made  for  going  value  have  not  been  very  definitely  fixed.  In  general, 
however,  it  may  be  said  that  there  are  two  methods  which  have  been  used 
to  a  considerable  extent.  1.  The  determination  of  the  extent  to  which 
losses  have  actually  been  incurred  in  building  up  the  business  in  question. 
2.  The  cost  of  reproduction  of  the  business.  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green 
Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236,  243. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities  513 

133.  Aside  from  an  arbitrary  percentage  which  must  have  some  basis 
in  fact,  the  measure  of  going  value  must  be  made  either  upon  the  basis 
of  cost  or  upon  the  basis  of  an  estimate  of  a  reproductive  value.  Upon  the 
basis  of  cost,  instances  frequently  occur  where  past  surpluses  have  offset 
and  wiped  out  past  losses.  Upon  the  basis  of  a  reproduced  plant  a  going 
value  will  be  developed  in  every  case  dependent  largely  upon  the  liberality 
of  the  estimate.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C. 
1,  151. 

134.  The  comparative  plant  method  of  estimating  going  value  is  a 
continuation  of  the  appraisal  or  cost  of  reproduction  theory  of  value  and 
is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  an  identical  utility  property  shall  have 
been  reprc^duced  at  the  present  time,  and  estimates  the  expenditures 
probably  made  before  the  hypothetical  or  comparative  plant  shall  have 
been  placed  upon  an  earning  basis  identical  with  the  present  property. 
The  comparative  plant  basis  is  open  to  the  objection  that  it  is  based  upon 
a  large  number  of  varying  assumptions,  involving  practically  every  factor 
in  the  calculation.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  1912,  10 
R.  C.  1,  155;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236, 
244;  In  re  Purchase  Antigo  W.  Go's  Plant,  1913,  13  R.  C.  156,  164;  City 
of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  441,  458. 

135.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  Alvord's  method  may  be  of  use  in  determining 
the  value  of  a  property  for  purchase  where  regulation  does  not  exist, 
but  it  is  not  a  proper  basis  for  a  rate-making  determination.  Under  regula- 
tion rates  must  be  such  as  to  yield  to  the  investor  a  return  upon  the  invest- 
ment used  in  supplying  this  service.  This  investment  consists  of  the  actual 
physical  property  together  with  the  necessary  costs  of  developing  the  busi- 
ness up  to  the  time  when  it  becomes  profitable.  City  of  Milwaukee  v. 
Milwaukee  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  441,  459. 

136.  The  cost  basis  of  estimating  going  value  has  been  variously 
criticised,  by  many  upon  the  ground  that  its  estimates  are  too  liberal, 
by  others  that  it  results  in  negative  values  and  takes  recognition  of  the 
utility's  past  financial  history.  Its  obvious  merit  lies  in  the  fact  that  it 
assumes  that  the  relations  of  users  and  utility  have  at  all  times  been 
placed  upon  an  equitable  basis.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  & 
L.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  1,  123, 154;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Water  Co., 
1913,  11  R.  G.  236,  243-244. 

137.  The  early  losses  or  deficits,  or  the  amounts  by  which  the  earnings 
of  the  plant  have  failed  to  meet  the  ordinary  operating  expenses,  taxes, 
deprecialiou,  and  a  reasonable  return  on  the  investment,  will,  in  the  ma- 
jority of  cases,  very  closely  measure  the  cost  of  deyeloping  the  business. 
Deficits  from  operation,  however,  cannot  equitably  be  taken  into  account 
in  the  appraisals  of  plants  regardless  of  the  conditions  under  which  they 
were  incurred.  Deficits  due  to  abnormal  conditions,  bad  management, 
poor  judgment,  extravagance,  lack  of  ordinary  care  and  foresight,  and 
extremely  high  capital  charges,  etc.,  it  is  clear,  should  receive  very  little 
consideration.  Nor  does  it  seem  clear  that  losses  due  to  lack  of  growth 
or  retrogression  of  community  development  should  be  charged  in  their 
entirety  against  the  consumers,  even  though  the  sacrifices  of 
the  owners  have  been  prudently  made.  Returns  upon  such  total 
costs  may  result  in  rates  not  reasonably  within  the  value  of  the  product 

17 


514 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

or  service  to  the  user.  Appleton  v.  Appleton  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
215,  276;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5 
R.  G.  302,  314;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  et  al,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  1,  122;  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co., 
1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  742-744,  803. 

h.   METHODS   OF   APPRAISAL. — Continued 
Determination  of  going  value. 

138.  When  the  proper  records  were  available  the  Gommission  has 
frequently  determined  the  cost  of  developing  business  from  the  actual 
records  of  the  utility.  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1913, 
12  R.  G.  441,  459. 

139.  In  determining  going  value  it  is  not  certain  that  the  full  extent  of 
the  losses  incurred  by  a  utility  should  be  accepted  as  a  cost  of  developing  the 
business,  for  losses  may  be  due  to  causes  for  other  than  the  actual  develop- 
mental costs.    In  re  Purchase  Antigo  W.  Co's  Plant,  1913,  13  R.  G.  156, 163. 

140.  With  respect  to  going  value  it  is  doubtful  if  full  allowance  could 
be  made  for  losses  incurred  in  developing  and  retaining  business  under 
competitive  conditions.  These  losses  might,  however,  be  given  some 
consideration  if  suitable  reductions  are  made  from  the  cost  of  the  physical 
property  on  account  of  the  duplication  caused  by  competition.  In  re 
Invest.  El.  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G.  584,  590. 

Determination  of  the  total  value  of  the  plant  and  its  business. 

141.  When  the  accounts  or  records  of  a  plant  are  missing  or  too 
incomplete  for  use,  the  reascnnble  cost  of  the  plant  and  of  its  business 
must  be  found  largely  through  their  cost  of  reproduction.  For  the 
physical  parts  of  the  plant  this  cost  new,  as  well  as  the  present  value,  is 
usually  determined  by  a  detailed  inventory  and  appraisal  of  the  physical 
property.  For  the  business  of  the  plant  the  cost  in  question  is  ordinarily 
obtained  through  similar  inquiries  into  all  the  operating  data  and  condi- 
tions of  the  plant  as  well  as  for  other  plants  for  which  similar  conditions 
obtain.     Hill  el  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  748. 

142.  When  accounts  and  records  of  a  plant  have  been  carefully  kept, 
the  normal  cost  of  the  plant  itself  as  well  as  of  its  business  may  be  obtained 
from  these  records.     Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  748. 

143.  A  method  of  valuation  which  has  long  received  the  favorable 
consideration  of  the  courts  as  one  of  the  reasonable  methods  to  be  applied 

■  when  possible  is  not  to  be  condemned  simply  because  in  certain  cases  it 
may  have  been  misapplied  and  extravagant  results  obtained  through  its 
misapplication.  The  theory  of  measuring  value  by  actual  investment  does 
not  contemplate  the  substitution  of  estimates  of  cost  of  reproduction  in 
place  of  the  original  and  actual  costs.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co., 
1914,  14  R.  G.  721,  726. 

144.  The  value  of  the  various  elements,  which  should  be  considered 
in  the  appraisal  of  public  utilities  for  rate-making  purposes,  may  be 
determined  in  various  ways,  but  the  methods  which  were  employed  for 
this  purpose  in  the  case  of  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
623,  738,  would  seem  to  be  as  practical  as  any  that  could  have  been 
conveniently  employed.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc 
El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  580. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 515 

Delermiiiation  of  the  value  of  the  physical  properly  of  the  plant — 
Cost  of  reproduction  new. 

145.  Where  it  is  impracticable  to  determine  what  the  actual  cost  of 
the  physical  property  has  been,  the  only  method  of  arriving  at  the  value 
of  that  property  is  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  reproduction.  City  of  Green 
Bay  V.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  236,  244. 

146.  In  determining  the  cost  of  reproduction  of  a  plant,  a  great  deal 
of  engineering  work  and  skill  is  required.  To  begin  with,  it  is  necessary 
to  obtain  a  complete  inventory  of  the  physical  property.  The  next  step 
consists  in  finding  a  suitable  price  per  unit,  not  only  of  each  class  of  prop- 
erty, but  of  the  labor  and  material  required  in  placing  it  in  its  proper  place 
or  position.  In  addition  to  this  it  is  also  necessary  to  ascertain  the  time 
required  for  construction,  in  order  that  interest  upon  the  cost  during 
the  construction  period  may  be  estimated,  the  probable  cost  of  engineering, 
superintendence,  insurance,  and  various  other  factors.  The  sum  of  the 
cost  of  all  of  these  elements  is  usually  said  to  constitute  the  cost  of  repro- 
duction new.     Hill  et  al.  v.  Aniigo  Wafer  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  636. 

147.  It  is  usually  possible  to  find  approximately  what  constitutes  a 
reasonable  investment  in  the  plant  from  the  figures  showing  the  cost  of 
reproduction  new,  when  these  have  been  carefully  computed  and  are 
based  on  normal  conditions.  In  re  Menominee  Sc  Marinette  Lt.  Sc  Tr.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  791. 

148.  Whether  the  proper  method  of  physical  valuation  represents  the 
cost  of  replacing  units  identical  with  those  in  the  existing  system,  or 
merely  the  cost  of  replacing  the  units  in  the  existing  system  .with 
equivalent  units  was  a  question  involved  in  the  proper  value  assignable 
to  a  number  of  items.  Neither  method  is  final  as  determining  the  cost 
new  or  present  value  of  the  property.  Both  may  be  of  evidentiary  value 
in  the  determination  of  actual  fair  value  of  the  property,  and  when,  as  in 
the  present  case,  there  is  nothing, to  indicate  that  the  original  investment 
was  unwisely  made,  it  seems  only  reasonable  to  accept  as  evidence  bearing 
upon  their  value  as  a  part  of  the  plant  to  be  transferred  the  actual  cost 
of  the  items,  or  the  cost  of  replacing  them  by  identical  units.  In  re 
Purchase  Janesville  Water  Wks.  Plant,  1915,  15  R.  C.  674,  685,  686. 

Land. 


149.  In  fixing  values  on  the  land  in  the  case  under  consideration,  the 
method  of  averages  was  employed.  Under  this  method  the  average 
value  per  unit  is  found  by  taking  the  average  assessed  value  per  acre 
or  other  unit  of  several  selected  similarly  situated  tracts,  and  applying  the 
percentage  of  assessed  value  to  the  average  bona  fide  sale  value  during  a 
recent  period,  either  the  past  year  or  past  five  years,  as  determined  by 
the  state  board  of  assessment  for  the  assessment  district  in  which  the 
land  in  question  is  situated.  This  gives  the  average  value  per  unit.  If 
the  land  in  question  involves  the  acquisition  of  a  number  of  separately 
owned  parcels,  10  per  cent  may  be  added  on  this  account.  State  Journal 
Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  EL  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  510-511; 
In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  71,  77. 

150.  The  Commission  has  based  the  values  placed  by  it  on  the  land 
involved  upon  information  with  respect  to  sales  of  land  in  the  immediate 


516 Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

vicinity  under  substantially  similar  conditions  as  modified  by  other 
information  at  its  command,  and  by  personal  inspection.  In  re  Purchase 
Oshkosh  W.  Wks.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  602,  616. 

b.    METHODS    OF    APPRAISAL. — Continued 

Determination  of  the  value  of  the  physical  property  of  the  plant 
— Cost  of  reproduction  new — Land. 

151.  The  price  placed  on  land  by  the  tax  assessor  is  not  a  satisfactory 
measure  of  value,  for  the  reason  that  it  attempts  not  to  show  the  full 
value,  but  to  maintain  a  just  proportionate  value  between  different 
pieces  and  classes  of  property.  In  re  Purchase  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Plant, 
1914,  13  R.  G.  452,  455. 

Obsolete  equipment. 

152.  In  obtaining  the  cost  of  reproducing  equipment  which  is  no 
longer  on  the  market,  consideration  must  be  given  to  the  cost  new  of 
modern  equipment,  designed  to  do  the  same  work.  The  present  value, 
however,  of  obsolete  equipment,  which  is  still  in  use  and  rendering  fair 
service,  would  seem  to  be  something  above  scrap  value.  In  re  Purchase 
Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  13  R.  C.  452,  458. 

Piecemeal  construction. 


153.  In  appraising  utilities  which  have  been  constructed  on  a 
piecemeal  basis,  the  problem  seems  to  be  to  find  units  of  cost  that  represent 
a  fair  average  of  these  conditions.  To  find  such  units  appears  to  be 
practicable.  In  fact,  it  would  seem  that  the  extra  costs  of  piecemeal 
construction  can  be  more  readily  and  accurately  taken  into  account  in 
this  manner  than  by  an  arbitrary  allowance  of  a  lump  sum  to  be  added  to 
a  cost  that  has  originally  been  computed  upon  the  basis  of  continuous 
construction.  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  EL  Co., 
1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  548-549. 

Prices  applied  in  determining  cost.  , 


154.  In  determining  the  cost  of  reproduction,  general  prices  would 
seem  to  be  more  applicable  than  cost  prices.  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water 
Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  684;  In  re  Purchase  Antigo  Water  Plant,  1913, 
13  R.  C.  156,  160. 

155.  We  cannot  see  how  a  figure  based  on  a  flat  price  per  mile  can 
represent  the  cost  of  reproducing  the  system  under  consideration,  except 
in  a  rough  way  which  is  not  at  all  satisfactory  for  the  purpose  at  hand. 
In  re  Purchase  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  13  R.  C.  452,  456. 

156.  The  valuations  made  by  the  staff  are  customarily  made  on  the 
basis  of  normal  prices  of  materials  and  labor.  Normal  prices  of  at  least 
some  construction  materials  are  gauged  by  a  five  year  average.  In  re 
Invest.  Ashland  Water,  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  721,  729. 

Depreciation  of  plant. 

157.  Whether  depreciation  has  been  properly  treated  may  be  shown 
by  investigations  covering  the  depreciation,  income  and  other  accounts  of 
the  plant,  and  by  examinations  of  its  physical  property  for  th6  purpose  of 
ascertaining  its  depreciated  or  existing  condition.  In  re  Menominee  & 
Marinette  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  791. 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 517 

158.  In  order  to  determine  the  present  investment  of  the  company 
it  is  necessary  to  estimate  the  amount  the  property  has  depreciated  through 
use,  and  to  note  the  effect  that  the  establishment  of  a  depreciation  reserve 
of  an  equal  amount  will  have  on  the  balance  sheet.  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee 
EL  Lt.  d:  P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  C.  712,  714. 

Original  cost. 

159.  As  to  whether  the  original  cost  is  accurately  shown  by  the 
construction  accounts,  is  a  matter  that  can  be  determined  by  a  detailed 
examination  of  these  accounts,  by  appraisal  of  the  plants  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  the  cost  of  reproducing  it  new,  and  in  other  ways.  In  re 
Menominee  <Sc  Marinette  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  778,  791. 

Present  value. 

160.  The  present  value  of  the  plant  is  found  by  deducting  the  total 
amount  of  the  depreciation  from  the  cost  of  reconstruction  new..  Hilt 
et  at.  V.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  623,  636. 

Determination  of  the  value   of  water  power  rights — Customary 
estiniates, 

161.  The  value  of  water  powers  is  ascertained  in  different  ways. 
Some  believe  that  the  market  price,  that  is,  what  is  paid  for  powers,  is 
the  best  criterion  of  their  value.  This  criterion,  when  relied  upon  alone, 
is  apt  to  lead  to  erroneous  conclusions.  It  is  conceivable  that  fictitious 
prices  and  fictitious  considerations  may  be  involved  in  the  acquisition  of 
water  powers  or  other  property.  In  such  cases  the  published  price 
cannot  be  taken  as  a  fair  estimate  of  value,  at  least  not  for  rate-making 
purposes.     Fullmer  v.  Wausau  St.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  114,  125. 

162.  In  estimating  the  value  of  water  rights,  it  seems  to  be  common 
practice  among  engineers  to  compute  what  it  would  cost  to  operate  a 
steam  plant  in  the  same  locality,  under  the  same  load  and  conditions. 
Finding  by  this  calculation  the  cost  per  horse  power  per  year  for  the  steam 
plant,  the  actual  cost  per  horse  power  per  year  of  the  existing  water 
power  plant  is  subtracted  therefrom,  and  the  saving  of  the  water  power 
over  the  steam  power,  as  shown  in  the  remainder,  is  called  the  value  of 
the  water  right.  In  this  way  steam  and  water  power  plants  are  ostensibly 
placed  on  the  same  basis.  From  a  purely  commercial  point  of  view 
this  method  of  estimating  the  value  of  water  power  rights  may,  in  the 
main,  be  sound.  But  it  is  not  so  clear  that  this  can  be  said  for  it  when 
the  question  is  regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of  public  policy.  Ross  et  at. 
V.  Burkhardt  Milling  &  El.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  139,  146-148-  Citu  of 
Belbit  V.  Beloit  W.  G.  <Sc  EL  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  247-248. 

163.  Some  experts  capitalize  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  operating 
an  hydrauUc  plant  and  a  steam  plant.  Without  approving  this  method, 
for  the  sake  of  illustration  it  may  be  roughly  applied  to  the  present  case. 
Fullmer  v.  Wausau  St.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  114,  126. 

Plant  must  be  considered  as  a  going  concern. 

164.  In  placing  a  value  on  the  physical  property  of  a  public  utility, 
the  units  of  a  plant  should  not  be  valued  as  independent  entities,  but  as 
units  of  a  going  concern  performing  public  utility  service.  In  re  Cashton 
Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  67,  78;  In  re  Purchase  EL  Plant  of  Prairie  du 
Sac  Mill  dc  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  360.  363. 


518  Valuation.— -Of  property  of  public  utilities 


c.   VALUATION  IN   PARTICULAR    CASES. 

Electric  utilities. 

165.  Value  of  physical  property  of  electric  utilities  determined.  In  re 
Appl.  J.  L.  Ball  (Augusta),  1907,  2  R.  C.  105,  109;  Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville 
EL  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  392,  398;  In  re  Purchase  Property  of  Cashton 
Lt.  Sc  Pr.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  67,  83;  In  re  Appl.  Menominee  &  Marinette 
Lt.  <Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  778,  787;  In  re  Appl.  No.  Milwaukee  Lt.  & 
Pr.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  89,  104;  State  Journal  Prig.  Co.  v.  Madison  Gas& 
El.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  C.  501,  556;  City  of  Rip  on  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910 
5  R.  C.  1,  8;  Fullmer  v.  Wausau  St.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  114,  122;  Ross  et  al 
V.  Burkhardt  Milling  &  Elec.  Pr.  Co.  (Hudson),  1910,  5  R.  G.  129,  141 
Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G 
302,  339;  City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manitowoc  Elec.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  360 
362;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Pr.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  397,  405 
In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  Elec.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  556 
City  of  Whitewater  v.  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  132,  134 
City  of  Sheboygan  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  El.  Co..  1911,  6  R.  G.  353,  358 
Lamb  v.  EasternWis.  Ry.  ScLt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473, 477;  In  re  Appl.  Bloomer 
Elec.  Lt.  Plant,  1911,  6  R.  G.  506,  509;  In  re  Appl.  Red  Cedar  Valley 
El.  Co.  (Gameron,  Rice  Lake),  1911,  6  R.  G.  717,  724;  In  re  Invest.  Madison 
Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  191J,  7  R.  G.  152,  156;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El. 
Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  201,  378;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  Sc  El.  Co., 
1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  156,  170;  In  re  Kaukauna  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G. 
409,  421;  In  re  Joint  Appl.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca, 
1911,  8  R.  G.  586,  592;  City  of  Rhinelander  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  ;912, 
9  R.  G.  406,  413;  In  re  Appl.  Bruce  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  474, 
475;  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G, 
704,  735,  802;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1912, 
11  R.X:.  197,  201;  In  re  Appl.  Chetek  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  227,  230; 
In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  451-453; 
In  re  Purchase  Brodhead  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  88,  94;  In  re  Appl. 
Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  200-201;  In  re  Appl. 
Ft.  Atkinson  W.  Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  275,  282,  299;  City  of 
Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  G.  S:  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  324,  326;  Douglass  et  al. 
V.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.  (Lake  Geneva),  1913,  12  R.  G.  337,  340;  Rosencrans 
et  al.  V.  Prairie  City  El.  Co.  (Prairie  du  Ghien),  1913,  12  R.  G.  413,  414; 
In  re  Invest.  Elec.  Rates  in  Oconto,  1913,  12  R.  G.  584,  589;  In  re  Appl. 
Neshkoro  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  52,  54-55;  City  of  Waukesha  v. 
Waukesha  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100,  103-111 ;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington 
El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  344,  350;  In  re  Appl.  Endeavor  El. 
Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  448,  451;  In  re  Purchase  Manitowoc  El.  Lt. 
Plant,  1914,  13  R.  G.  452,  454,  465;  In  re  Appl.  Mt.  Horeb  Heat  Lt.  Sc 
P.  Co.,  1914,  13  R.  G.  653,  655;  In  re  Invest.  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co., 
1914,  13  R.  G.  712,  713-715;  Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
227,  229;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350, 
357;  Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  Sc  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485,  489; 
In  re  Appl.  Browntown  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  560,  562;  City  of 
Watertown  v.  Watertown  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  604,  608;  Jones  et  al. 
V.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  125;  In  re  Appl.  Sun 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 519 


Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  C.  189,  191;  In  re  Purchase  of  El. 
Plant  by  the  Vill.  of  Sharon,  1914,  15  R.  C.  238,  239;  In  re  Purchase  of 
Grand  Rapids  El.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  258,  268;  In  re  Purchase  El.  PI.  of 
Prairie  du  Sac  Mill  &  Lt.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  360,  363;  In  re  Appl.  United 
Heat  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  (Darien,  Delavan),  1914,  15  R.  C.  505,  516;  In  re  Appl. 
Rhinelander  Power  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  783,  804. 

Express  companies. 

166.  The  total  value  of  property  assigned  to  Wisconsin,  $186,865, 
included  the  property  actually  used  in  the  state,  a  proportion  of  the  prop- 
erty used  for  the  business  of  the  company  as  a  whole,  and  an  additional 
allowance  for  working  capital.  In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
1,  32-33. 

Gas  utilities. 

167.  Value  of  physical  property  of  gas  utilities  determined.  In  re 
Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  G.  163,  167;  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co. 
V.  Madison  Gas  Sc  Elec.  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  501,  556;  City  of  Ripon  v. 
Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  1,  8;  Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa 
Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  302,  339;  City  of  Racine  v.  Racine 
Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  228,  233;  In  re  Invest.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co., 

1911,  7  R.'  C.  152,  156;  City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  G.  187,  201,  378;  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  L.  H.  &  P.  Co.  (Appleton, 
Neenah-Menasha),  1911,  7  R.  G.  477,  479,  490;  In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse 
Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  156,  170;  City  of  Neenah  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt. 
H.  &  P.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  251,  257-258;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  Gas  Lt. 
Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  439,  441;  Superior  Comrnl  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt. 
&  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  735,  802;  Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  Gas  Lt. 
Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  309,  316;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Gas  &  El.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  324,  326;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  Milwaukee  Gas  Lt.  Co., 
1913,  12  R.  G.  441,  444,  464-465;  City  of  Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  Gas  <k 
El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100,  103-111;  Yanko  et  al.  v.  Portage  American 
Gas  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  136,  137-138;  In  re  Appl.  Manitowoc  Gas  Co., 
1913,  13  R.  G.  325,  329-334;  In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  PL  Ltg. 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  350,  357;  Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  G.  121,  125. 

Heating  utilities. 

168.  Value  of  physical  property  of  heating  utilities  determined.  In 
re  Appl.  La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  138,  156,  170;  City  of 
Waukesha  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  100,  103-106;  Jones 
et  al.  V.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  121,  125. 

Interurban  railways. 

169.  Value  of  physical  property  of  interurban  railways  determined. 
Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  tfc  L/.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  478;  Schicker  v. 
Rockford  cfc  /.  Ry.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  695,  698;  Chromaster  v.  M.  N.  Ry.  Co., 

1912,  8  R.  G.  734,  743-744. 


520  Yaluation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 

■  ■-■-■         ■  ■        ..■■-■ ^ .  fc , 

c.   VALUATION   IN    PARTICULAR    CASES.— Continued 

Railroads. 

170.  Value  of  physical  property  of  railroads  determined.  Buel  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  324,  474;  In  re  Passenger  Rates  M. 
St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  540,  543. 

Street  railways. 

171.  Value  of  physical  property  of  street  railways  determined.  Full- 
mer v.  Wausau  St.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  114,  122;  City  of  Sheboygan  v.  She- 
boygan Ry.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  353,  358;  Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  Ry. 
&  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  473,  478;  City  of  Milwaukee  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 
Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  1,  63,  458-160;  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  at.  v.  Duluth 
Street  Ry.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  1,  15,  22;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay 
Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  324,  326;  In  re  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 
Co.  in  Milwaukee,  1913,  13  R.  C.  178,  229. 

Telephone  utilities. 

172.  Value  of  physical  property  of  telephone  utilities  determined. 
In  re  Appl.  J.  L.  Ball  (Augusta),  1907,  2  R.  C.  105,  109;  In  re  Appl.  Portage 
Tel.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C.  692,  694;  In  re  Invest.  Rates  &  Service  of  the  Badger 
Tel.  Co.  (Richland  Center),  1908,  3  R  C.  98,  100;  Tighc  et  al.  v.  Clinton 
Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  117,  125;  In  re  Appl.  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G. 
535,  547;  Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  (Marinette),  1909,  4  R.  G.  1,  9; 
Davis  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  (Ilortonvillc),  1909,  4  R.  C.  370,  376;  Columbus 
Advn.  Assn.  v.  Wis.  Tel  Co.,  1910,  4  R.  G.  414,  417;  In  re  Appl.  Franksville 
Tel.  Co.  (Thompsonville),  1910,  4  R.  G.  437;  In  re  Appl.  Interurban  Tel. 
Co.  (Madison),  1910,  6  R.  G.  187,  191;  In  re  Appl.  Troy  and  Honey  Creek 
Tel.  Co.  (Prairie  du  Sac,  Sauk  City),  1911,  6  R.  G.  549,  551;  In  re  Appl. 
Evansville  Tel.  Exch.,  1911,  6  R.  G.  606,  608;  In  re  Appl.  Ozaukee-Washing- 
ton Tel.  Co.  (Grafton),  1911,  7  R.  G.  428,  429;  In  re  Appl.  State  Long  Dis- 
tance Tel.  Co.  (Elkhorn),  1912,  8  R.  G.  497,  500-501 ;  In  re  Appl.  Plymouth 
Tel.  Exch.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  169, 171;  In  re  Appl.  Farmers  Tel.  Exch.  of  Rich- 
land Center,  1912,  9  R.  G.  369,  372;  In  re  Appl.  Brodhead  Tel.  Co.,  1912, 
9  R.  G.  383,  384;  In  re  Appl.  Ashland  Home  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  9  R.  G.  489, 
490;  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.   v.  West  Crawford  Co.  F.  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1912, 
11  R.  G.  32,  39;  In  re  Appl.  East  Fond  du  Lac  Tel.  Co.  (Eden),  1912,  11 
R.  G.  114,  115;  In  re  Appl.  Random  Lake  Tel.  Co.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  130, 
131;  Knapp  et  al.  v.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.  (Shiocton,  Welcome),  1912,  11  R.  G. 
180,  187-188;  In  re  Appl.  MuscodaMui.  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  666,  672 
In  re  Appl.  Deerfield  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  672,  673;  In  re  Appl.  Toma- 
hawk Lt.  Tel.  Sc  Improvement  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  340,  341;  In  re  Appl. 
Farmers'   Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown,   1914,    13  R.   G.   540,   552-553;  Arena  & 
Ridg'y  Tel.   Co.  v.  Troy  <Sc  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  (Spring  Green), 
1914,  13"^ R.  G.  763,  765;  In  re  Appl.  Badger  State  Tel.  c^  Teleg.  Co.  (Neills- 
ville,  Granton),  1914, 14  R.  G.  407, 412-415;  In  re  Appl.  New  Union  Tel.  Co. 
(Podgeville,  Mineral  Pt.),  1914,   15  R.  G.  60,  63;  In  re  Appl.  Mineral 
Pt.  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  182,  184;  In  re  Tel.  Toll  Rates,  Markesan  to 
Kingston,  1914,  15  R.  G.  288-292;  In  re  Invest.  Rates  &  Regulations  of  Eagle 
Tel.  Co.  (Eagle),  1914,  15  R.  G.  397,  400;  In  re  Appl.  Marion  &  Northern 
Tel.  Co.  (Glintonville),  1914,  15  R.  G.  552,  560;    In  re  Appl.  Clark  County 
Tel.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  822,"  827.  '     " 


Valuation. — Of  property  of  public  utilities 521 

Toll  bridges. 

173.  Value  of  physical  property  of  toll  bridge  determined.    Marcus  et 
(il.  V.  Postel  &  Swingle  (Muscoda),  1913,  13  R.  G.  47,  49,  50. 

Water  utilities. 

174.  Value  of  physical  property  of  water  utilities  determined.  In 
re  Purchase  of  Property  of  City  Water  Co.  of  Sheboygan^  1909,  3  R.  C.  371, 
377;  Hill  d  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  687;  City  of  Ashland 
V.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  G.  273,  277;  City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  & 
W.  Co.,  1910,  5.  R.  C.  1,  8;  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  G.  215,  226;  Cunningham  et  al.v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &:  Ltg. 
Co.,  1910,  5.  R.  G.  302,  339;  In  re  Appl.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  <Sc  Water  Pr.  Co., 
1910,  5  R.  C.  397,  405;  In  re  Purchase  of  Property  of  Fond  du  Lac  Water 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  482,  491;  In  re  Appl.  Jefferson  Mun.  Elec.  Lt.  Sc  W. 
Plant,  1910,  5  R.  G.  555,  556;  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910, 
5  R.  G.  731,  739;  Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G.  26,  30; 
City  of  Washburn  v.  Washburn  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  74,  78;  In  re 
Purchase  of  Property  of  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  97,  106; 
In  re  Purchase  of  Property  of  Lake  Geneva  Water  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  G. 
403,  405;  City  of  Stevens  Pt.  v.  Stevens  Pt.  Water  Co.,  1911,-6  R.  G.  458, 
468;  In  re  Purchase  of  Property  of  Manitowoc  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G. 
71,  76;  In  re  Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  71,  127,  130;  City  of 
Beloit  V.  Beloit  Water  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  187,  201,  378;  In  re  Appl. 
Oconto  City  Water  Supply  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  497,  511,  517;  City  of  Janesville 
V.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  635,  642;  In  le  Appl.  Hillsboro 
W.  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  G.  85,  87;  City  of  Marinette  v.  City  W.  Co.  of  Mari- 
nette, 1911,  8  R.  G.  334,  352;  In  re  Valuation  of  Whitewater  W.  Wks.  Co., 

1912,  10  R.  G.  524,  527;  Civic  League  et  at.  v.  Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  661,  675;  Superior  Comm' I  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P. 
Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  704,  735,  802;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Neenah,  1912,  11  R.  G. 
119,  121;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  cfc  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G. 
197,  201;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  Water  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  236.  242; 
Rollins  et  al.  v.  Village  of  Montjort,  1913,  11  R.  G.  278,  280:  In  re  Appl. 
Cashton  Mun.  Lt.  &  W.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G..  410,  413;  In  re  Appl. 
Columbus  W.  &  LI.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  451-452;  In  re  Appl.  Village 
of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913, 11  R.  C.  690,  691-692;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan, 

1913,  12  R.  G.  148,  151;  In  re  Appl.  Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant, 
1913,  12  R.  G.  194,  200-201 ;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm., 

1913,  12  R.  G.  260,  272,  282;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
532,  537-539;  In  re  Purchase  Oshkosh  W.  Wks.  Plant,  1913.  12  R.  G.  602, 
670;  In  re  Purchase  Antigo  W.  Go's  Plant,  1913,  13  R.  G.  156,  158-159, 
164;  In  re  Purchase  Beaver  Dam  Water  Go's  Plant,  1913,  13  R.  G.  169, 
176-177;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  28;  Town  of 
Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  291,  295;  Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy 
Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914,  14  R.  G.  485,  489;  Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of 
Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634,  637;  Hughes  et  al.  v.  Waierlown  Water  Wks., 

1914,  14  R.  G.  669,  671;  In  re  Purchase  Janesville  Water  Wks.  Plant,  1915, 
15  R.  G.  074,  680. 


522  Value  of  Article  Carried 


VALUE  OF  ARTICLE  CARRIED. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 

159-163. 
As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 

Rates — Railroad,  197-198. 


VALUE  OF  SERVICE. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  164. 

VEHICLE  SPRINGS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  vehicles  springs,  see  Rates — Railroad,  284. 

VESTED  INTERESTS. 

Contract  whose  performance  depends  upon  the  continuance  of  a 
franchise. 

1.  Vested  interests  cannot  be  divested,  but  a  contract  whose  perform- 
ance depends  upon  the  continuance  of  a  franchise  is  not  one  in  which  the 
owner  of  a  franchise  can  have  a  vested  interest.  This  seems  to  be  clear 
under  the  ruling  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  in  Greenwood  v. 
Freight  Co.,  1881,  105  U.  S.  13,  19,  21-22.  Citij  of  Ashland  v.  Ashland 
Water  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  273,  303. 

VIADUCTS. 

For  separation  of  grades  at  railroad  crossings,  see  Railroads,  55. 

VILLAGES. 

See  also  Municipalities. 

Power  of  villages  to  require  the  protection  of  railroad  grade  crossings,  see 

Railroads,  103. 
Right  of  railroads  to  construct  their  tracks  across  or  upon  the  highways  and 

public  places  of  any  village,  see  Railroads,  105. 

Village  board,  consent  of,  necessary  for  abandonment  of  street  railway 

track  constructed  under  franchise  granted  by  such  board,  see  Street 

Railways,  9.  ^ 

petition  of,  as  condition  precedent  to  jurisdiction  of  Commission  over 

crossing  of  railroad  by  highway,  see  Railroad  Commission,  86. 

VISUAL  SIGNAL. 

Installation  of,  see  Railroads,  22. 


Warehouses. — In  general 523 

VOLUME  OF  TRAFFIC. 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
156-158. 

WAGES  AND  SALARIES. 

As  element  considered  in  making  rates  for  electric  utilities,  see  Rates — 

Electric,  41-42. 
Wages  of  management  as  element  considered  in  makingYates  for  toll  bridge, 

see  Rates — Toll  Bridge,  1. 

WAGON  BOXES. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  wagon  boxes,  see  Rates — Railroad,  234. 

WAGONS. 

Reasonableness    of    rates    on    wagons,    see    Rates — Railroad,  234. 

WAITING  STATIONS. 

See  Station  Facilities. 

WAIVER. 

Waiver  of  right  to  damages  under  public  service  contracts,  see  Contracts 
8;  Estoppel,  1. 

WAREHOUSES. 

Discrimination  between  dealers,  see  Discrimination,  48. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 
II.   CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  IN  GENERAL. 
III.   OPERATION. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

Definition  of  warehouseman. 

1.  The  supreme  court  of  Wisconsin  has  defined  a  warehouseman  as 
"one  openly  engaged  in  the  business  of  storing  property  for  others  for  a 
compensation."  (Geilfuss  v.  Corrigan,  1897,  95  Wis.  663),  and  the  statute 
which  gives  the  Commission  authority  over  warehouse  sites  on  railroad 
property  evidently  contemplates  a  business  in  which  a  specific  service  is 
rendered  to  all  demanding  it  for  a  uniform  compensation.  American 
Society  of  Equity  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <k  0.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  G.  557,  558. 


524  Warehouses. — Control  and  regulation 


II.  CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  IN  GENERAL. 

Power   of  Commission   over   public   warehouse   sites   on   railroad 
property. 

2.  The  representative  of  the  company  raised  the  question  of  the 
Commission's  power  to  require  a  railway  company  to  lease  any  particular 
site  on  its  right  of  way  to  persons  desiring  to  erect  a  warehouse.  The 
statutes  empower  the  Commission  to  make  such  an  order  in  cases  where 
the  warehouse  is  of  a  public  nature;  but  no  jurisdiction  is  given  it  in  cases 
where  the  petitioning  parties  do  not  contemplate  the  establishment  of  a 
public  warehouse.  American  Society  of  Equity  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sz  0.  R. 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  557,  558;  Roberts  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R. 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.207;  Rust  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co:,  1914,  14  R.  C. 
251,  252. 

Public  nature  of  warehouses  owned  by  railroad  companies. 

3.  "While  it  is  not  the  absolute  legal  duty  of  a  common  carrier  to 
provide  elevator  facilities  at  terminals,  it  is  highly  advantageous  to  the 
public  and  to  the  carrier  that  such  facilities  be  furnished,  and  when  they 
are  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  public  and  are  used  by  it  for  a  series  of 
years,  so  that  commercial  conditions  and  interests  have  grown  up  under 
such  methods  of  doing  business,  such  elevators  become  an  integral  part  of 
the  equipment  of  the  carrier,  which  the  public  at  large  has  the  right  to  use. 
Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  619;  Superior 
Board  of  Trade  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  655. 

Railroad  company  not  compelled  to  construct  and  maintain  grain 
elevator. 

4.  While  an  elevator  at  the  point  in  question  is  a  desirable  facility 
for  a  railway  company  to  have,  and  while  if  the  railway  company  in 
question  had  furnished  such  a  facility  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  public 
it  would  be  obliged  to  continue  the  service,  it  is  not  under  any  legal 
obligation  to  engage  in  the  elevator  business  as  an  original  proposition. 
Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  658,  659. 

III.  OPERATION. 

Requirements  as  to  service  and  facilities — Special  bins.  ^ 

5.  By  providing  special  bins  when  called  for,  the  value  of  an  important 
facility  in  transportation  might  be  greatly  minimized.  When  the  ad- 
vantages that  might  result  to  the  few  are  compared  with  the  disadvantages 
that  might  result  to  the  many,  we  entertain  little  doubt  that  the  prayer 
of  the  petition  in  this  respect  should  be  denied.  Superior  Board  of  Tradfi 
V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  R.  C.  619,  654. 

WATER  POWER  LAW. 

SECTIONS  CONSTRUED. 

Sec.  1596,  "unlawful  obstructions,"  law  does  not  define  what  constitutes 
unlawful  obstructions.  In  re  Obstructions  in  Rock  River  at  Janes- 
ville,  1914.  14  R.  C.  190,  202. 


Water  Powers. — Dams 525 

Sec.  1596-59,   dams  constructed  and  operated  without  authority  of  law, 

when  declared  pubUc  nuisance.     In  re  Appls.  for  W.  P.  Franchise 

on  Apple  River,  1915,  15  R.  C.  712,  721. 
Sec.   1596-69,    subsec.   6,    franchise  for  increasing  or  combining  water 

powers,  when  franchise  is  unnecessary.     In  re  Appls.  for  W.  P. 

Franchise  on  Apple  River,  1915,  15  R.  G.  712,  721. 

WATER  POWER  LEASE. 

Unpaid  rent  on  water  power  lease  not  an  element  of  value  in  valuation  of 
property  of  electric  utility,  see  Valuation,  126. 

WATER  POWER  RIGHTS. 

Appraisal  of  water  power  rights  in  the  valuation  of  the  property  of  public 

utilities,  customary  estimates,  see  Valuation,  161-163. 
As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  127-128. 

WATER  POWERS. 

See  also  Navigable  Waters. 

Saving  from  operating  of  electric  plant  by  hydraulic  power  as  element 
considered  in  determining  value  of  electric  utility,  see  Valuation, 
127-128. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  obstructions  in  navigable  streams,  see 
Railroad  Commission,  64. 
over  river  improvements,  see  Railroad  Commission,  97. 

DAMS. 

Dams  constructed  and  operated  without  authority  of  law — 
Status  of. 

1.  It  is  contended  by  the  counter-petitioners  that  the  petitioners' 
McClure  dam  is  an  illegal  structure,  being  constructed  and  operated  with 
no  authqrity  from  either  the  legislature  or  the  Commission.  Sec.  1596-59 
of  the  Water  Power  Act  allows  a  period  of  six  months  after  which  a  dam 
operated  without  authority  shall  become  a  public  nuisance.  As  the  dam 
in  question  was  finished  a  few  days  prior  to  the  date  at  which  the  Water 
Power  Act  went  into  effect,  and  even  if  its  construction  had  not  been 
completed  until  after  the  act  went  into  effect,  the  petitioner  could  have 
operated  it  without  a  franchise  for  the  period  of  six  months  allowed  by 
statute,  so  that  the  dam  cannot  be  said  to  be  in  any  sense  a  nuisance 
under  the  Water  Power  Act.  In  re  Appls.  for  W.  P.  Franchise  on  Apple 
River,  1915,  15  R.  C.  712,  721. 

Repairs,  necessity  of. 

2.  Necessity  for  repairs  determined  by  Commission,  Power  company 
ordered  to  make  necessary  repairs.  In  le  Paramount  P.  &  Realty  Co., 
1912,  9  R.  C.  331. 


526  Water  Powers. — Franchises 


WATER  POWER  FRANCHISES. 

Conditions  under  which  franchise  may  be  granted. 

3.  The  provisions  of  subsec.  6  of  sec.  1596-69  do  not  apply  to  the 
New  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Company,  for  neither  is  it  a  "grantee" 
within  the  meaning  of  the  term  as  used  throughout  the  Water  Power  Act, 
nor  is  the  Huntington  dam  included  within  the  terms  of  the  section  quoted. 
The  "coupling  up"  referred  to  applies  to  dams  of  less  than  250  horse 
power  and  to  dams  for  which  a  franchise  has  been  granted  under  the  W^ater 
Power  Act,  and  the  Huntington  dam  is  neither  of  these,  and  as  no  franchise 
has  as  yet  been  granted  to  the  petitioner  to  operate  the  McClure  dam, 
it  is  in  no  sense  a  grantee.  It  is  not  obligatory,  therefore,  that  the  peti- 
tioner organize  under  the  provisions  of  sec.  1596-62  of  the  statutes  in 
order  to  become  eligible  for  a  franchise  under  the  Water  Power  Act. 
In  re  Appls.  for  W.  P.  Franchise  on  Apple  River,  1915, 15  R.  G.  712,  721. 

WATER  RATES. 

See  Rates — Water. 

WATER  UTILITIES. 

Cost  of  service  of  water  utilities,  determination  of  unit  costs,  see  Account- 
ing, 174-185. 

Depreciation,  rate  of  depreciation  of  water  plant,  see  Depreciation, 
-     46-51. 

Discrimination  as  between  consumers  of  water  utility,  see  Discrimina- 
tion, 30-46.  N 

Taxation,  relation  between  the  assessed  valuation  and  the  net  earnings 
of  public  utilities,  see  Taxation,  1. 

ACCOUNTING. 
See  Accounting,  5,  174-185. 


I.      CONTROL  AND  REGULATION   IN   GENERAL. 
II.     EARNINGS. 

III.  ESTABLISHMENT,   CONSTRUCTION   AND   MAINTENANCE. 

a.   Extensions. 

IV.  MUNICIPAL  ACQUISITION — TERMS  AND   CONDITIONS  OF  SALE 

AND   PURCHASE. 

a.  Compensation  for  property. 

b.  Power  of  municipalily  to  acquire  public  utility. 

V.   OPERATION. 

a.  Management.  c.   Sewer  flushing. 

b.  Requirements  as  to  service  and     d.   Standards  of  service. 

facilities. 

VI.      WATER  COMPANIES. 


I.  CONTROL  AND  REGULATION  IN  GENERAL. 

P<ywer  of  state  to  regulate  service  and  facilities. 

1.  Every  public  service  corporation  is  by  statute   subject  to  public 
supervision  as  to  the  extent  and  quality  of  its  service.     (Berend  v.  Wis. 


Water  Utilities. — Establishment,  constr.  and  mainten.    527 

Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  155.)     In  re  Appl:  Oconto  City  Water  Supply 
Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  691,  692. 

II.  EARNINGS. 

Monopoly  power  as  factor  in  earnings. 

2.  When  public  utilities  earn  more  than  reasonable  returns  on  their 
investment,  it  is  quite  likely  that  this  extra  earning  can  be  traced  to  their 
monopoly  advantages.  Their  bargaining  powers  are  greater  than  those 
of  their  customers.  Their  customers  are  limited  in  freedom  of  choice. 
They  have  fitted  up  their  homes  with  pipes  and  fixtures  and  these  are 
connected  with  the  mains  of  the  local  utihty.  These  pipes  and  connec- 
tions have  also,  as  a  rule,  been  put  in  at  their  own  expense.  They  have 
no  option  of  patronizing  a  competing  company  in  case  they  become  dis- 
satified.  Even  if  there  were  another  utility  of  the  kind  in  their  place, 
the  change  would  be  so  costly  that  it  would  be  likely  to  result  in  a  loss  in 
the  long  run.     Hill  et  at.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  623,  720-721. 

III.  ESTABLISHMENT,  GONSTRUGTION  AND  MAINTENANGE. 

a.   EXTENSIONS. 

Duty  of  utility  to  extend  mains. 

3.  A  water  utility  should  construct  and  own  its  distribution  system, 
at  least  as  far  as  to  the  consumer's  premises.  This  being  the  case,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  by  what  process  of  reasoning  it  can  be  held  that  the  fact 
that  the  utility  has  in  the  past  shifted  upon  consumers  a  portion  of  its 
rightful  duties,  the  installing  of  parts  of  the  distribution  system,  should 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  utihty  putting  in  a  main  or  mains  at  the  present 
time.     City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  689. 

4.  That  the  cost  of  new  main  should  not  be  entirely  met  by  the 
consumers  directly  served  by  that  main  is  true  especially  in  cases  where  a 
main  is  so  situated  that  further  extension  of  it  may  be  made  as  occasion 
arises.     City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  691. 

For  domestic  service  only. 

5.  To  be  just  and  effective,  an  order  requiring  an  extension  of  water 
mains  to  be  made  for  domestic  service  alone,  should  be  made  with  due  re- 
gard for  ^he  magnitude  of  both  the  investment  necessary  and  the  probable 
additional  earnings  to  be  gained  thereby,  including  the  return  on  the  addi- 
tional investment.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.  City  of  Beloit,  1912,  9  R.  G. 
250,  258-259. 

In  particular  cases. 

6.  Petition  for  extension  of  mains  dismissed.  In  re  Viola  Mun.  W. 
Plant,  1914,  13  R.  G.  702,  703. 

7.  Utility  ordered  to  extend  mains.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  Et.  Co.  v.  City  of 
Beloit,  1910,  5  R.  G.  459,  617;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Water  Co., 
1911,  7  R.  G.  628;  Madison  Realty  Co.  et  at.  v.  City  of  Madison,  1912,  10 
R.  G.  447;  Webber  et  at.  v.  City  of  Lake  Mills,  1913,  12  R.  G.  577;  Atwood 
et  at.  v.  City  of  Lake  Mills,  1914,  14  R.  G.  210;  In  re  Janesville  Water  Co., 
1914,  15  R.  G.  370. 


528    Water  Utilities. — Establishment,  constr.  and  mainten, 

a.   EXTENSIONS. — Continued 

Reasonableness  of  municipal  ordinance  ordering  extension. 

8.  A  public  utility  cannot  be  required  to  make  extensions  indiscrim- 
inately, without  reference  to  cost  and  revenues,  but  such  utility  may  well 
be  expected  to  make  extensions  to  serve  citizens  if  there  is  a  reasonable 
prospect  of  an  increase  in  revenues,  sufficient  to  warrant  the  expense. 
Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.  City  of  Beloit,  1910,  5  R.  C.  459,  464-465. 

9.  No  utility  can  extend  its  mains  or  other  service  lines  indefinitely  to 
reach  a  single  new  consumer  or  a  small  number  of  new  consumers  and 
at  the  same  time  furnish  service  to  all  at  the  same  average  unit  cost.  It 
is  therefore  necessary  either  to  establish  some  rule  or  rules  fixing  equitable 
terms  under  which  extensions  of  its  pipe  or  other  lines  will  be  made  for 
new  consumers  beyond  the  limits  of  its  system,  or  to  make  frequent 
readjustments  of  rates  to  all  consumers  to  fit  the  changed  conditions. 
Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.  City  of  Beloit,  1912,  9  R.  C.  250,  259-261. 

Reasonableness  of  order  requiring  extension. 

10.  In  determining  the  question  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  an  order 
requiring  the  extension  of  water  mains,  due  consideration  should  l>e  given, 
not  only  to  the  interests  of  the  utility,  but  to  the  interests  of  the  consumer 
and  the  public.  These  interests,  however,  as  well  as  the  conditions  upon 
which  they  depend,  vary  so  much  from  place  to  place  that  it  is  difficult, 
if  not  altogether  impossible,  to  lay  down  specific  rules  for  extensions  of  the 
plant  and  the  business  that  can  be  generally  applied.  In  a  general  way  it 
can,  of  course,  be  said  that  extensions  should  be  put  in  at  the  expense  of 
the  plant  whenever  they  bid  fair  to  become  fairly  remunerative.  Because 
of  varying  conditions,  however,  the  term  "fair  remuneration"  may  not 
always  stand  for  like  elements.  Beloit  W.  G.  Sc  El.  Co.  v.  City  of  Beloit, 
1910,  5  R.  C.  617,  623-624;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesvilie  Water  Co.,  1911, 
7  R.  C.  628,  689. 

Terms  and  conditions  of  extension. 

11.  In  the  matter  of  extending  the  mains  of  a  water  system,  uniform 
regulations  should  be  enforced.  The  persons  desiring  the  extension  of  a 
main  should  be  subjected  to  like  terms  and  conditions.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El. 
Co.  V.  City  of  Beloit,  1912,  9  R.  C.  250,  261;  Webber  et  al.  v.  City  of  Lake 
Mills,  1913,  12  R.  G.  577,  580. 

12.  Rates  for  extensions  prescribed.  In  re  Invest.  Green  Bay  Water 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  734;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  C.  1. 

IV.  MUNICIPAL  ACQUISITION— TERMS  AND  CONDITIONS  OF 

SALE  AND  PURCHASE. 

a.    COMPENSATION  FOR   PROPERTY. 

Compensation  determined  by  Commission. 

13.  Compensation  for  property  determined  by  Commission  in  the 
following  cases  of  municipal  acquisition  of  water  utilities:  In  re  City 
Water  Co.  of  Sheboygan,  1909,  3  R.  C.  371;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co., 
1910.  5  R.  C.  482;  In  re  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  97;  In  re 
Lake  Geneva  Water  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  403;  In  re  Manitowoc  Water 


Water  Utilities. — Municipal  acquisition;  terms,  etc.      529 

Wks.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  71;  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C. 
259;  In  re  Manitowoc  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  266;  In  re  Valuation 
of  Whitewater  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  524;  In  re  Purchase  Oshkosh 
Water  Wks.  Plant,  1913,  12  R.  C.  602;  In  re  Purchase  Antigo  Water  Co's 
Plant,  1913,  13  R.  G.  156;  In  re  Purchase  Beaver  Dam  Water  Co's  Plant, 
1913,  13  R.  G.  169,  177;  In  re  Purchase  Janesville  Water  Wks.  Plant, 
1915,  15  R.  G.  674. 

Compensation  to  cover  property  used  and  useful. 

14.  The  law  neither  authorizes  nor  enables  the  city  to  purchase  only 
such  part  of  the  plant  as  it  may  desire,  nor  can  the  company  compel  the 
city  to  acquire  more  property  than  is  actually  used  and  useful  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  public.  City  of  Mellen  u.  Mellen  W.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5 
R.  C.  202,  204. 

b.   POWER  OF  MUNICIPALITY  TO  ACQUIRE  PUBLIC  UTILITY. 

Action  by  municipal  council — Regularity. 

15.  Objection  was  made  that  the  action  of  the  municipal  council  of 
the  city  of  Fond  du  Lac  to  acquire  the  water  works  of  the  Fond  du  Lac 
Water  Go.  was  void  for  the  reason  that  such  action  was  not  expressed  in 
the  form  of  an  ordinance  or  formal  resolution.  We  apprehend  that  in 
the  absence  of  any  specific  requirement  as  to  the  form  of  the  action,  any 
motion  duly  made,  voted  upon  and  recorded  would  be  an  effective  de- 
termination of  the  matter  under  the  statute.  {Citij  of  Green  Bay  u.  Brauns, 
1880,  50  Wis.  204,  207.)  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  482, 
490. 

Capacity  of  city  to  incur  indebtedness. 

16.  The  argument  on  behalf  of  the  company  relative  to  the  financial 
inability  of  the  city  to  make  the  purchase  is  predicated  on  certain  assump- 
tions that  are  more  or  less  speculative,  and  hence  not  sufficient  grounds 
for  objection  at  this  stage  of  the  proceeding.  Until  the  just  compensation 
is  ascertained  it  is  impossible  to  determine  even  approximately  the  ability 
of  the  city  to  pay  the  same.  Such  compensation  may  be  more  or  less  than 
the  tentative  valuation,  which  merely  forms  the  basis  of  the  investigation. 
In  re  Racine  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  543,  553;  In  re  Purchase  Janesville 
Water  Co's  Plant,  1913,  13  R.  G.  29,  30. 

Provision  for  compensation. 

17.  The  law  is  well  settled  that  when  private  property  is  appropriated 
by  a  municipality  for  public  purposes  such  compensation  must  be  actually 
made  or  the  means  provided  whereby  it  can  be  certainly  obtained.  How- 
ever, the  omission  of  any  means  for  securing  such  compensation  is  not  an 
infirmity  of  the  act  if  such  means  otherwise  exist  and  are  sufficient  for  the 
purpose.  In  re  Racine  Water  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  543,  550;  In  re  Purchase 
Janesville  Water  Co's  Plant,  1913,  13  R.  G.  29,  30. 

Submission  of  question  to  voters. 


18.  Questions  often  arise  in  respect  to  certain  property  which  has 
ceased  to  be  active  or  is  only  semi-active,  as  to  whether  the  same  is  actu- 


\ 


530     Water  Utilities. — Municipal  acquisition;  terms,  etc. 

ally  used  and  useful  for  the  convenience  of  the  public  within  the  meaning 
of  the  statute,  and  until  these  questions  are  determined  it  is  not  possible  to 
give  anything  more  than  a  general  description  of  the  plant,  and  even  then  a 
definite  description  would  contain  so  much  detail  as  to  be  of  no  practical 
value  to  the  voters.  The  term  "water  works"  is  as  comprehensive  a  term 
as  could  be  employed.  In  re  Racine  Water  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  543,  547; 
In  re  Purchase  Janesville  Water  Go's  Plant,  1913,  13  R.  G.  29,  30. 

b.   POWER   OF   MUNICIPALITY   TO   ACQUIRE   PUBLIC 

UTILITY. — Continued 

Right  to  determine  question  of  acquisition — Where  vested. 

19.  It  was  not  until  after  the  common  council  had  adopted  the  report 
of  the  committee  declaring  the  intention  of  the  municipality  to  acquire  the 
water  works,  that  the  legislature  amended  sec.  1797/n-80,  thereby  taking 
from  the  council  and  vesting  in  the  voters  of  the  municipality  the  right  of 
determining  whether  the  municipality  shall  acquire  any  public  utihty. 
Unless,  therefore,  the  action  of  the  council  prior  to  the  amendment  is 
ineffectual  for  any  reason,  such  determination  of  the  council  must  be  held 
binding  upon  the  municipality.  Wis.  Statutes,  sec.  1797/n-80,  as  amended 
by  eh.  213,  laws  of  1909.  In  re  Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G. 
482,490. 

V.  OPERATION. 

a.    MANAGEMENT.  \ 

Financial  transactions. 

20.  It  appears  to  be  a  good  business  policy  to  treat  a  municipal  plant 
as  an  enterprise  separate  and  distinct  from  the  municipality  itself  and  to 
have  accounts  kept  accordingly.  If  this  policy  is  followed  the  city  should 
pay  the  utility  at  a  reasonable  rate  for  all  service  rendered  the  city, 
in  order  to  avoid  unjust  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  taxpayers  of  the 
city  as  against  consumers;  the  utility,  in  turn,  should  pay  the  city  a  reason- 
able amount  as  taxes  and  as  interest  oil  the  city's  equity  in  the  property  of 
the  utility,  in  order  to  avoid  unjust  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  consum- 
ers as  against  the  taxpayers;  and  the  city  should  provide  all  funds  required 
for  capital  expenditures.  In  re  Appl.  Lake  Mills  Lt.  &  W.  Comrn.,  1912, 
11  R.  G.  160,  164;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G.  532,  535-537. 

21.  In  regard  to  the  handling  of  moneys  of  the  water  department, 
attention  is  called  to  sec.  925-956  to  925-95c  of  the  Statutes,  which  speci- 
fically provide  for  the  administration  of  water  works  accounts.  Gompli- 
ance  with  the  provisions  as  outlined  in  the  law  referred  to  will,  it  is 
believed,  relieve  the  present  confusion  regarding  the  handling  of  finances. 
In  re  Appl.  Lake  Mills  Lt.  &  W.  Comm.,  1912,  11  R.  G.  160,  163;  Dennett 
et  al.  V.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634,  650. 

22.  Materials  sold  by  a  utihty  should  be  sold  at  a  price  high  enough 
to  cover  at  least  the  cost  of  handhng  in  addition  to  the  cost  of  the  goods, 
and  in  the  cost  of  handhng  should  be  included  not  only  such  items  as 
freight  and  cartage,  but  also  the  losses  due  to  breakage,  necessary  waste 
and  other  costs  of  a  similar  nature.  In  re  Invest.  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  <fc 
El.  Plant,  1914,  15  R.  G.  534.  551. 


Water  Utilities. — Operation  531 


b.    REQUIREMENTS  AS  TO  SERVICE  AND  FACILITIES. 

In  general. 

23.  Every  public  service  corporation  is  required  by  law  to  furnish 
adequate  and  efficient  service  to  the  public  according  to  the  development 
and  state  of  the  art  at  the  time  the  service  is  performed.  Berend  v.  Wis. 
Tel.  Co.,  1909,  4  R.  C.  150,  155;  In  re  Appl.  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co., 

1910,  5  R.  C.  691,  692. 

Adequacy  of  service. 

24.  The  question  of  adequacy  of  watfer  service  in  general  was  passed 
upon  in  the  following  cases:  Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  C. 
627;  City  of  Mellen  v.  Mellen  W.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  202;  City  of  Apple- 
ton  V.  Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  215;  Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison 
Water  Comm.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  731;  City  of  Stevens  Pt.  v.  Stevens  Pt.  Water 
Co.,  1911,  6  R.  C.  458;  Torrance  et  al.  v.  La  Crosse  Board  of  Water  Commrs, 

1911,  7  R.  C.  27;  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  C.  4a; 
In  re  Appl.  Hillsboro  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1911,  8  R.  C.  85;  Superior  Comm' I 
Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  704;  In  re  Invest. 
Bayfield  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913,  11  R.  C.  686;  Vill.  of  Sharon  v. 
United  Heat  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913,  13  R.  G.  1;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1;  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G. 
291;  Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634. 

Duty  of  utility  to  furnish  service. 

25.  By  entering  into  the  contract  for  pumping  the  village  did  not 
give  up  its  proprietership  of  the  water  works  and  the  milling  company  did 
not  assume  any  direct  obligation  to  the  patrons  of  the  water  works.  All 
contractual  relations  between  the  village  and  the  consumers  remained  as 
before.  The  duty  of  serving  the  inhabitants  with  pure,  wholesome 
water  still  rests  directly  upon  the  village  and  the  village  ordinance  regarding 
the  use  of  water  by  consumers,  and  subjecting  the  latter  to  prosecution 
and  fine  for  any  violation  of  its  provisions,  remains  in  effect.  In  re  Appl. 
Village  of  Cashton,  1908,  2  R.  G.  677,  684. 

Plan  to  secure  adequacy  primarily  a  matter  for  utility  to 

determine. 

26.  Plans  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  plant  in  order  to  provide  for 
adequate  service  is  a  matter  primarily  for  the  utility  to  determine.  The 
public  is  only  interested  in  the  result.  City  of  Appleton  v.  Appleton 
Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  G.  215.  285-286. 

Appliances  for  the  measurement  of  product  or  service — Duty  of 
utility  to  provide  meters. 

27.  The  Public  Utihties"  Law  clearly  contemplates  that  the  divided 
ownership  of  parts  of  the  equipment  of  public  utilities  shall  cease,  and 
that  all  responsibility  for  the  installation  and  maintenance  of  the  whole 
of  the  equipment  shall  be  centered  exclusively  in  the  management.  In 
practice,  this  undoubtedly  means  that  private  and  municipal  plants 
must  acquire,  by  purchase  or  lease,  all  meters  used  in  connection  with 
their  respective  works.  In  re  Invest.  Hudson  W.  Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  G. 
138,  141;  City  of  Washburn  v.  Washburn  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G. 


532 Water  Utilities. — Operation 

74,  92;  City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  Water  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  C.  628,  681; 
City  of  Marinette  v.  City  Water  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911,  8  R.  C.  334,  377; 
Alter  et  al.  v.  City  of  Manitowoc,  1912,  10  R.  C.  387,  397-398;  Civic  League 
et  al.  V.  Beaver  Dam  Water  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  661,  689-691;  In  re  Appl. 
City  of  Neenah,  1912,  11  R.  C.  119,  128;  In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El. 
Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  C.  197,  209,  215;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart 
Lake,  1913,  11  R.  C.  690,  693;  Alter  et  al.  v.  City  of  Manitowoc,  1914,  14 
R.  C.  690,  693,  694;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  C.  532,  545. 

b.   REQUIREMENTS   AS   TO   SERVICE   AND   FACILITIES. — Continued 

Appliances  for  the  measurement  of  product  or  service — Duty  of 
utility  to  provide  meters. 

28.  Since  the  decision  in  the  Hudson  case  (1908,  5  R.  C.  138)  was 
rendered,  the  legislature  has  created  a  different  situation  by  enacting 
ch.  213,  laws  of  1909  (sec.  1797/n-90),  in  accordance  with  which  the  public 
titility  may,  on  application  to  the  Commission,  be  exempted  from  the  duty 
of  providing  meters  for  its  consumers.  City  of  Washburn  v.  Washburn 
Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  74,  92. 

29.  Utility  ordered  to  install  meters.  In  re  Invest.  Hudson  Water 
Wks.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  138;  Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910,  6  R.  G. 
26;  408;  City  of  Washburn  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  74; 
City  of  Beloit  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,'  7  R.  C.  187;  In  re  Appl. 
Oconto  City  Water  Supply  Co,  1911,  7  R.  C.497;  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of 
Tomahawk,  1911,  8  R.  G.  40;  Lothrop  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912,  8  R.  C.  479; 
Alter  et^al.  v.  City  of  Manitowoc,  1912,  10  R.  G.  387;  Civic  League  et  al.  v. 
Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  G.  661;  City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay 
W.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  236;  In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Elkhart  Lake,  1913, 
11  R.  G.  690;  In  re  Appl.  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Conun.,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
260. 

Duty  of  utility  to  repair  meters. 

30.  Repair  items  are  expenses  which  the  utility  should  bear.  In  re 
Appl.  City  ofDelavan,  1913,  12  R.  G.  148,  162. 

31.  The  water  department  should  assume  the  expenses  of  keeping 
all  meters  in  repair  and  should  pay  all  consumers  owning  their  meters  a 
reasonable  rental  for  the  same.  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Sparta,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
532,  545;  Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914,  14  R.  G.  634,  649. 

Location  of  meters. 

32.  The  meter  -boxes  already  set  in  the  street  gutters  should  be  re- 
moved, as  ordered  by  the  city  council,  and  placed  under  the  sidewalk, 
and  future  installations  of  the  kind  should  be  made  under  the  sidewalk, 
except  perhaps  in  special  cases  in  which  the  City  authorizes  the  installation 
in  the  street.  Oconto  City  Water  Supply  Co.  v.  City  of  Oconto,  1912, 
10  R.  G.  584,  589. 

33.  Consumers  must  furnish  a  reasonably  accessible  meter  location 
approved  by  the  water  works  superintendent,  and  upon  failure  to  provide 
a  suitable  location  for  a  meter  and  after  reasonable  notice  has  been 
given,  water  \sill  be  shut  off  until  the  requirements  have  been  complied 
with.     In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  G.  148,  163. 


Water  Utilities. — Operation  533 


Utility  relieved  from  duty  of  providing  meters. 


34.  Order  entered  authorizing  utility  to  require  consumers  to  supply 
meters.  In  re  Appl.  Durand  Mun.  W.  Wks.,  1912,  11  R.  C.  169;  In  re 
Appl.  City  of  Milwaukee,  1912,  11  R.  G.  195;  In  re  Appl.  Cashton  Lt.  & 
W.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  410;  In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  G. 
148;  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1. 

Cross  connections  between  mains. 

35.  Gross  connections  at  short  intervals  between  parallel  or  radiating 
water  mains  are  generally  recognized  as  important,  particularly  from  the 
standpoint  of  rejiabihty  of  fire  service.  Atwood  et  al.  v.  City  of  Lake  Mills, 
1914,  14  R.  G.  210,  214. 

Quality  of  water. 

36.  The  problem  of  deahng  correctly  with  the  purification  of  a  water 
supply  of  varying  quality  and  degree  of  pollution  would  seem  to  require 
the  installation  and  use  of  facilities  for  scientifically  determining  the 
character  of  the  water  at  any  and  all  times.  In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water 
Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  6. 

37.  Inasmuch  as  the  installation  of  a  purification  plant  has  noticeably 
improved  the  quality  of  the  water  supplied  for  domestic  use  and  inasmuch 
as  there  is  no  evidence  that  laboratory  or  other  additional  facilities  are 
urgently  needed,  an  order  for  the  installation  of  such  additional  facilities 
is  not  advisable  at  this  time.  Town  of  Vaughn  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914, 
14  R.  G.  291,  312. 

38.  Whether  the  present  apparent  freedom  from  contamination  of 
the  water  can  be  depended  upon  to  continue  indefinitely,  cannot  at  present 
be  determined.  If  it  is  liable  to  contamination,  the  purification  of  the 
supply  should  be  immediately  investigated.  Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  oj  She- 
boygan, 1914,  14  R.  G.  634,  639. 

Services — Duty  of  utility  to  provide  services. 

39.  The  logical  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  the  utility  should  install 
and  own  services  to  the  curb  line.  The  utility,  and  not  the  consumer,  has 
the  right  to  occupy  the  streets,  and  all  pipes  laid  in  the  streets  should  be 
the  property  of  the  utility,  and  we  believe  should  be  put  in  by  the  utility. 
City  of  Janesville  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911,  7  R.  G.  628,  681;  In  re  Appl. 
Columbus  Water  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913,  11  R.  G.  449,  471. 

40.  Where  the  practice  of  requiring  consumers  to  furnish  services 
from  main  tO'  curb  has  been  consistently  followed  it  may  be  best  to  con- 
tinue this  pohcy.  Alter  et  al.  v.  City  of  Manitowoc,  1912,  10  R.  G.  387,  396; 
In  re  Invest.  Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  c^  W.  Plant,  1912,  11  R.  G.  197,  210; 
In  re  Appl.  City  of  Delavan,  1913,  12  R.  G.  148,  161;  Alter  et  al.  v.  City  of 
Manitowoc,  1914,  14  R.  G.  690,  692. 

Leaks. 

41.  The  consumer  ordinarily  has  no  great  interest  in  water  wasted 
that  does  not  go  through  his  meter,  and  is  reluctant  to  report  leaks  which 
cause  such'  losses  if  he  is  compelled  to  pay  for  the  repair.  In  order, 
therefore,  to  protect  itself  it  seems  advisable  that  the  utility  should  main- 
tain the  pipe  up  to  the  meter.  In  re  Appl.  Columbus  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Comm., 
1913, 11  R.  C.  449,  471;  In  re  Appl  City  of  Delavan,  1913, 12  R.  G.  148, 162. 


534 Water  Utilities. — Operation 

c.    SEWER  FLUSHING. 

Reasonableness  of  rules.  , 

42.  Each  time  the  city  desires  to  flush  sewers  it  shall  notify  the  water 
company  in  advance  and  the  company  shall  then  provide  one  person  who 
shall  take  exclusive  charge  of  turning  water  on  and  off,  and  of  meters 
used  for  measuring  water  for  flushing,  except  that  in  cases  of  emergency 
the  city  may  flush  sewers  after  notice  to  the  company  without  waiting 
for  the  company's  representative  to  arrive.  In  re  Invest.  Green  Bay  Water 
Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  734,  741-743. 

d.   STANDARDS   OF   SERVICE. 
Press  uriB. 

43.  Investigations  show  that  since  the  complaint  was  entered  changes 
in  the  periods  of  pumping  have  increased  the  pressure.  Respondent  has 
made  numerous  improvements  by  instalhng  apparatus  giving  better  con- 
trol of  the  standpipe  and  insuring  its  being  kept  full  at  all  times.  A  private 
fire  alarm  system  has  also  been  established,  keeping  the  company  informed 
as  to  all  fire  alarms  and  insuring  better  service  in  periods  of  such  necessity. 
City  of  Ripon  v.  Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910,  5  R.  C.  1,  3,  88-89. 

44.  The  present  service  is  inadequate  and  it  is  ordered  that  the  utility 
make  improvements  in  its  plant  and  equipment  as  outlined  by  the  Com- 
mission, so  that  it  will  be  in  a  position  to  furnish  adequate  fire  protection. 
Civic  League  et  ai  v.  Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912,  10  R.  C.  661,  689-691. 

Supply. 

45.  A  perfect  water  supply  is  worth  all  it  costs.  There  is  no  financial 
standard  by  means  of  which  to  measure  the  limit  of  human  effort  that 
should  be  expended  in  attaining  it.  The  safety  and  permanence  and  growth 
of  the  dependent  civilization  is  too  important  to  permit  expression  in  ordi- 
nary units  or  to  be  reduced  to  the  basis  of  profit  or  interest  on  investment, 
or  to  be  viewed  in  any  common  way  as  solely  a  commercial  or  industrial 
enterprise  or  utility.    In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914,  14  R.  G.  1,  24. 

RATES. 
See  Rates — Water. 

VALUATION. 
See  Valuation. 

VI.  WATER  COMPANIES. 

Franchises  and  powers  in  general. 

46.  In  this  state  public  utiUties  are  operated  either  under  franchises 
usuafly  granted  by  the  municipalities  they  serve,  or  under  indeterminate 
permits  obtained  under  the  statutes  of  the  state.  Some  of  these  franchises 
are  limited  as  to  time;  others  are  revocable  by  their  very  terms;  many, 
like  the  indeterminate  permits,  are  perpetual;  and  all  are  subject  to  repeal 
and  alterations  by  the  legislature.  Hill  et  ai  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1909,  3  R. 
G.  623,  723. 


Weights. — In  general 535 

4 

WATERS. 

See  Navigable  Waters. 

WAY  AND   STRUCTURES. 

Apportionment  of  maintenance  of  way  and  structures  expenses  in  the 
determination  of  unit  tosts  for  interurban  railways,  see  Account- 
ing, 74,  86. 
for  street  railways,  see  Accounting,  143. 

WEIGHING  FACILITIES. 

See  also  Station  Facilities,  28-29. 

Shipper's  lack  of  facilities. 

1.  The  fact  that  a  shipper,  through  lack  of  facilities  for  ascertaining 
weights,  cannot  load  cars  just  as  he  would  like  to  do  does  not  prove  the 
unreasonableness  of  the  rate  or  the  minimum  weight  applicable.  Brown 
Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  C.  569,  574. 

WEIGHT. 

Relation  of  weight  of  article  to  space  occupied  as  element  considered  in 
making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad,  151-152. 

WEIGHT  COSTS. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates  for  express 
companies,  see  Rates — Express,  11,  13. 

WEIGHT-DISTANCE    COSTS. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  rates  for  express 
companies,  see  Rates — Express,  14. 

WEIGHT  OF  ARTICLES  CARRIED. 

As  matter  considered  in  determining  reasonableness  of  railroad  rates,  see 
Rates — Railroad,  194. 

WEIGHTS. 


I.      IN   GENERAL. 
II.      MINIMUM   CARLOAD    WEIGHTS. 
III.      MINIMUM   EXPRESS   RATES. 


I.  IN  GENERAL. 

Charges  to  be  based  upon  actual  weights. 

1.  The  law  does  not  permit  charges  to  be  based  upon  anything  but 
actual  weights,  and  if  an  error  in  weighing  occurs  it  must  be  corrected 


536 Weights. — In  general 


and  charges  adjusted  accordingly.  Any  other  policy  would  manifestly 
afford  an  opportunity  for  the  indulgence  of  practices  subversive  of  the 
principle  purpose  of  the  statute  which  prohibits  unjust  discrimination. 
Wheeler-Timlin  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  434,  435. 

II.  MINIMUM  CARLOAD  WEIGHTS. 

Basis  of  mininium  weights. 

2.  Classification  and  minimum  weights  must  necessarily  rest  upon 
general  and  permanent  rather  than  upon  special  and  temporary  conditions. 
Crary  v.  M.  St.  P.  cfc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909,  3  R.  C.  432,  439. 

Commercial  conditions. 

3.  Commercial  conditions  of  a  territory  have  always  had  an  important 
influence  in  the  making  of  commodity  rates,  issuing  of  exception  sheets, 
etc.  It  is  just  as.  proper  that  the  same  consideration  should  be  given  to 
such  local  problems  in  the  fixing  of  a  minimum  so  long  as  the  carrier  is  pro- 
tected from  carrying  at  carload  rates  which  should  properly  go  as  less  than 
than  carload.  In  re  Rates  on  Agricultural  Implements,  1913,  11  R.  C.  508, 
522.  / 

— ' —     Minimum  should  he  based  upon  practical  loading  capacity. 

4.  A  scientific  arrangement  of  tiers  of  bales,  based  upon  abstract 
mathematical  calculation  relating  to  dimensions  of  bales  and  cars  re- 
spectively, is  not  a  fair  measure  of  the  loading  capacity  of  a  car  in  actual 
practice.  Loftus-Hubbard  Elevator  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  91, 
96. 

5.  The  proper  principle  to  govern  in  fixing  a  minimum  loading  for  a 
car,  when  used  in  the  transportation  of  any  commodity,  is  the  ascertain- 
ment of  the  amount  of  the  commodity  that  can  be  loaded  when  ordinary 
care  is  exercised,  and  the  establishing  of  the  minimum  within  such  limit. 
Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  54,  60; 
Richards  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  C.  507,  512;  Minneapolis  Lbr. 
Co.  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1909,  4  R.  C.  206,  209;  Standard  Lime  &  Stone 
Co.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  R.  C.  228,  237;  Oshkosh  Excelsior 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  C.  178,  179. 

6.  The  minimum  to  apply  on  a  car  should  not  be  greater  than  the  full 
weight  limit  permitted  to  be  loaded  in  the  car.  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v. 
C.  (Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  R.  C.  400,  401. 

7.  If  it  can  be  estabUshed  that  a  commodity  cannot  be  loaded  to 
minimum  provided  by  tariff,  the  minimum  weight  on  that  commodity 
should  be  reduced,  even  though  it  is  necessary  at  the  same  time  to  increase 
the  rate,  and  the  Commission  is  ready  at  all  time  to  take  up  and  remedy, 
insofar  as  it  is  within  its  power,  all  matters  of  this  nature.  Allen  v!  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  R.  C.  95,  99. 

Sliding  scale  minimum. 

8.  In  prescribing  a  basis  for  a  sliding  scale  minimum,  there  are  certain 
factors  to  be  considered  which  may  or  may  not  be  reasonable  in  any  given 
case.  Among  these  elements  are  (1)  the  size  of  car  that  is  fixed  as  a  stand- 
ard, (2)  the  use  of  the  length  of  the  car  as  the  sole  basis  for  increase  in 


Weights. — Minimum  carload  weights    537 


minimum  weight,  and  (3)  the  fixing  of  the  percentage  per  foot  as  the 
amount  to  be  added  to  a  minimum  on  cars  longer  than  the  standard.  In 
re  Rates  on  Agricultural  Implements,  1913,  11  R.  C.  508,  525. 

Trafl&c  conditions. 

9.  It  is  not  fair  to  base  an  element  in  a  freight  classification  such  as  a 
minimum  weight  upon  the  classification  of  another  territory  where  traffic 
conditions  may  be  very  different.  In  re  Rates  on  Agricultural  Implements, 
1913,  11  R.  C.  508,  523.  . 

Determination  of  reasonable  minimum.  , 

10.  The  loading  capacity  of  the  cars  cannot  alone  be  the  decisive 
consideration  in  the  determination  of  a  reasonable  minimum  weight.  Trade 
considerations  and  commercial  necessities  deserve  equal  consideration  with 
the  physical  capacity  of  cars  in  establishing  reasonable  minima.  Crary  v. 
M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  et  al.  1909,  3  R.  C.  432,  438-439. 

11.  In  applying  the  rule  for  determining  a  minimum  weight  based 
on  foot  measurements,  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  apply  a  higher  mini- 
mum on  account  of  an  additional  inch  in  the  length  of  the  car.  OsMosh 
Fuel  Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  C.  222,  226. 

Double  minimum  charge. 

12.  The  rules  now  in  force  are  unreasonable,  and  the  G.  St.  P.  M.  & 
O.  Ry.  Co.  is  ordered  to  modify  its  tariff  schedules  so  as  to  eliminate  such 

•  double  minima.    In  re  Mixed  Carloads  of  Grains  and  Seeds,  1910,  5  R.  C. 
711,  713. 

Duty  of  carrier   to  furnish   car  adai>ted    to    the   character  of  the 
shipment. 

13.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier,  generally,  to  furnish  a  car  adapted  to 
the  transportation  of  the  commodity  designated,  and  having  such  capacity 
that  the  minimum  loading  provisions  will  not  result  in  an  excessive  charge 
for  the  carriage.  This  is  true  in  the  absence  of  any  request  on  the  part 
of  the  shipper  for  any  particular  kind  or  size  of  car.  Loftus-Hubbard 
Elev.  Co.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1  R.  C.  91;  Albert  Trostel  &  Sons  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co., 
1908,  2  R.  C.  761,  762. 

Failure  to  furnish  cars  of  required  size — Substitution  of  box  cars 
for  flat  cars. 

14.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier,  generally,  to  furnish  a  car  adapted  to 
the  transportation  of  the  commodity  designated,  and  having  such  capacity 
that  the  minimum  loading  provisions  will  not  result  in  an  excessive 
charge  for  the  carriage.  This  is  true  in  the  absence  of  any  request  on 
the  part  of  the  shipper  for  any  particular  kind  or  size  of  car.  A  Ibert 
Trostel  &  Sons  v.  \V.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  R.  G.  761,  762. 

Substitution  of  larger  cars. 

15.  When  a  shipper  orders  a  car  for  a  specific  purpose  the  railway 
company  should  supply  a  car  which  will  meet  that  purpose  fully,  without 
additional  expense.  Loftus-Hubbard  Elevator  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906, 
1  R.  G.  91,  97;  Franke  Grain  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  R.  C.  182, 


538  Weights. — Minimum  carload  weights 

184;  Colby  Cheese   Box  &  Silo  Co.  u.  M.  Si.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
15  R.  C.  469;  Stevens  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914,  15  R.  G.  524,  526. 

Failure  to  furnish  cars  of  required  size — Substitution  of  smaller 
cars. 

16.  It  is  not  reasonable  that  carriers  unable  to  supply  shippers  with 
sufficient  cars  of  large  or  average  capacity  should  make  such  minimum 
loading  requirements  as  can  not  be  practically  complied  with  as  to  the 
smaller  cars,  in  order  that  they  may  obtain  as  much  earnings  from 
shipments  therein  as  from  those  in  the  larger  and  superior  cars.  {Wiemer 
<Sc  Rich  V.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907,  12  I^  G.  G.  R.  465.)  Merrill 
Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co..  1908.  3  R.  G.  54.  60-61. 

Minima  and  rates — Rates  changed  through  change  in  minimum 
weights. 

17.  It  is  well  known  that  rates  can  be  changed  indirectly  through  the 
classification,  including  minimum  weights.  This  is  bad  practice  and 
vitiates  both  rate  making  and  systematic,  not  to  speak  of  scientific 
classification.     Richards, v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  R.  G.  507,  513. 

Shortage  in  loading. 

18.  If  the  required  minimum  has  for  any  reason  not  been  loaded  in  a 
car,  the  actual  rate  exceeds  the  nominal  rate  by  an  amount  proportional 
to  the  shortage  in  weight.  Crary  v.  M.  St.  P.' Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  at., 
1909,  3  R.  G.  432,  439. 

Should  be  kept  separate. 

19.  The  rate  is  one  thing.  The  minimum  weight  is  another.  The 
two  should  be  kept  distinct  and  separate  except  in  those  relatively  rare 
cases  in  which  it  is  impracticable  to  do  so.  Richards  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1909,  3  R.  C.  507,  512-513. 

Rules  and  regulations  as  to  mininia. 

20.  It  is  unreasonable  to  fine  a  shipper,  through  the  instrumentality 
of  an  arbitrary  rule  governing  minimum  weights,  for  his  failure  to  designate 
complicated  car  dimensions,  concerning  which  he  can  not  be  expected  to 
have  knowledge,  in  ordering  cars.  Loftus-Hubbard  Elevator  Co.  v.  W.  C. 
R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C.  91,  98. 

21.  If  the  shipper  desires  any  particular  sized  car,  it  is  his  duty  to 
order  the  same.  In  the  absence  of  such  order  the  carrier  is  permitted  to 
furnish  such  car  as  it  has  available  for  the  transportation  in  question. 
Krouskop  V.  C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  178,  181 ;  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co. 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  6  R.  G.  199,  201. 

Weighing  facilities. 

See  also  Station  Facilities,  28-29. 

22.  The  fact  that  a  shipper,  through  lack  of  facilities  for  ascertaining 
weights,  cannot  load  cars  just  as  he  would  Uke  to  do  does  not  prove  the 
unreasonableness  of  the  rate  or  the  minimum  weight  applicable.  Brown 
Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915,  15  R.  G.  569,  574. 


Withdrawal  of  Service    '  539 


III.  MINIMUM  EXPRESS  WEIGHTS. 

Rules  and  regulations  prescribing  minimum  weights,  reasonableness  of, 
see  Rates — Express,  5. 

WESTERN  CLASSIFICATION. 

Jurisdiction  of  Commission  over  western  classification  insofar  as  it 
affects  intrastate  shipments,  see  Railroad  Commission,  107. 

Trunk  line  rates  take  precedence  over  western  classification,  see  Trunk 
Line  Rules,  1. 

"WHAT  THE  TRAFFIC  WILL  BEAR." 

As  element  considered  in  making  railroad  rates,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
165-167. 

WHEAT. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  wheat,  see  Rates — Railroad,  241. 


* 


WHEELBARROWS. 

Mixture  privilege  with  agricultural  implements,  see  Rates — Railroad, 
200. 

WHEY  BUTTER. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  whey  butter,  see  Rates — Railroad,  296. 

WHISKEY. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  whiskey,  see  Rates — Railroad,  254. 

WHOLESALE  RATES. 

Commutation  tickets,  see  Tickets,  1-5. 

WIRE  PLANT  EXPENSES. 

Apportionment  of  wire  plant  expenses  in  the  determination  of  unit  costs 
for  telephone  utilities,  see  Accounting,  166. 

WITHDRAWAL  OF  SERVICE. 

Regulations  for  withdrawal   of  service,   see  Rules  and  Regulations, 

31-10. 
Withdrawal  of  service  permitted  for  reasonable  length  of  time  for  violation 

of   rules   and    regulations    of   telephone    utility,    see   Telephone 

Utilities,  57-60. 


540  Wood. — Zones 


WOOD. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  wood,  see  Rates — Railroad,  95-96. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  wood,  see  Rates — Railroad,  298-302. 

WOOD  BOLTS. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  bolts,  see  Rates — Railroad,  207. 

WOOD  PULP. 

Reasonableness  of  rates  on  wood  pulp,  see  Rates^Railroad,  274. 

WORKING  CAPITAL. 

As  element  in  the  valuation  of  public  utilities,  see  Valuation,  113-116. 

YARDAGE  FACILITIES. 

See  Station  Facilities;  Switch  Connections. 

YARD  LIMITS. 

Definition  of  the  term  "Yard  Limits." 

1^  Primarily  the  right  to  fix  the  limits  of  depot  grounds  rests  with  the 
railway  companies.  If  they  seek  to  extend  such  grounds  beyond  reason- 
able limits,  they  cannot  escape  liability  because  they  have  called  something 
a  station  ground  that  either  was  not  used  or  was  not  reasonably  necessary 
for  that  purpose.  The  cases  in  which  the  court  expressed  a  view  that  the 
portion  of  the  main  track  beyond  a  switch  that  was  used  for  switching 
purposes  might  be  considered  depot  grounds,  were  cases  when  the  railroads 
had  themselves,  in  a  practical  way,  by  the  use  of  fences  and  cattle  guards 
or  substitutes  therefore,  attempted  to  define  the  limits  of  their  grounds. 
Osceola  Mill  &  Elev.  Co.  u.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906,  1  R.  C. 
166,  173. 

ZINC   ORE. 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  zinc  ore,  see  Rates — Railroad,  97. 
Reasonableness  of  rates  on  zinc  ore,  see  Rates — Railroad,  264. 

ZONE  SYSTEM  RATES, 

Alleged  discrimination  in  zone  system  rates,  see  Discrimination,  56-59. 
Commutation  zone  rates,  see  Rates — Street  Railway,  4. 
Zone   system   rates   for   street   and   interurban   railways,    see   Rates — 
Interurban,  10-12;  Rates — Street  Railway,  24-26. 
for  telephone  toll  rates,  see  Rates — Telephone,  15. 

ZONES. 

Fare  zones,  see  Interurban  Railways.  11. 


CASES  REPORTED 


TABLE  OF  CASES  REPORTED. 

I.  Bond  Gases. 

II.  Bridge  Cases. 

III.  Dealers'  License  Cases. 

IV.  Electric  Utility  Cases. 
V.  Electric  Railway  Cases. 

VI.  Express  Cases. 

VII.  Gas  Utility  Cases. 

VIII.  Heating  Utility  Gases. 

IX.  Railroad  Cases. 

X.  Telephone  Gases. 

XL  Toll  Bridge  Cases. 

XII.  Water  Utility  Gases. 

XI 1 1.  Water  Power  Gases. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  REPORTED. 

,  -  Volume  and  Page 

I.  BOND  CASES. 

In  re  Southern  Wisconsin  Ry.  Co.,  1907 

Authority  to  issue  bonds II  47 

Southern  Wisconsin  Ry.  Co.,  In  re,  1907 

Authority  to  issue  bonds II  47 

II.  BRIDGE  CASES. 

In  re  West  Algoma  Street  Bridge  in  Oshkosh,  1912 

Safety  of  bridges VIII  441 

'-,  1912 

Safety  of  highway  bridges  over  which  railways  are  op- 
erated  IX  357 

West  Algoma  St.  Bridge,  in  Oshkosh,  In  re,  1912 

Safety  of  bridges .....VIII  441 

, ,  1912 

Safety  of  highway  bridges  over  which  railways  are  op- 
erated  IX  357 

III.  DEALERS'  LICENSE  CASES. 

Grieb  &  Greene  Co.,  In  re  Appl.  for  a  Dealers'  License,  1914 

Issue  of  license  to  deal  in  securities XIV  140 

In  re  Appl.  Grieb  &:  Greene  Co.  for  a  Dealers'  License,  1914 

Issue  of  license  to  deal  in  securities XIV  140 

IV.  ELECTRIC  UTILITY  CASES. 

a.  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 

Cashton,  Village  of.  In  re  Appl.,  1908 

For  construction  of  municipal  electric  plant II  677 

Fox  River  Millg.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  Appl,  1913 

For  construction  of  electric  plant XI  552 

In  re  Appl.  Village  of  Cashton,  1908 

For  construction  of  municipal  electric  plant II  677 

Fox  River  Millg.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913 

For  construction  of  electric  plant (. XI  552 

Interstate  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

For  extension  of  service  to  town  of  Mifflin,  I  a.  Co X  603 

M.  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.  El.  Plant  at  Delafield,  1914 

For  operation  of  second  electric  utility  in  Delafield XV  497 

Interstate  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  et  al..  In  re  Appl.,  1912 

For  extension  of  service  to  town  of  Mifflin,  la.  Co X  603 

Milwaukee,  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.,    The,  El.   Plant  at  Delafield, 
In  re  Appl.,  1914 

For  operation  of  second  electric  utility  in  Delafield XV  497 

Sheboygan,  City  of,  v.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co.,  1914 

For  construction  of  municipal  plant XIV  215 


542  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IV.     ELECTRIC  UTILITY  CASES. 

a.  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 

Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  El.  Co.,  City  of  Sheboygan  v.,  1914 

For  construction  of  municipal  plant .', XIV  215 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Alma  Electric  Light  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1907 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  144 

Arcadia,  Village  of.  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  216 

Bayfield  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Electric  and  water  service XI  686 

Beloit,  City  of,  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911 

Electric,  gas  and  water,  rates  and  service VII  187 

Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  City  of  Beloit  v.,  1911 

Electric,  gas  and  water,  rates  and  service VII  187 

Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  Jones  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Gas,  electric  and  heating  rates XV  121 

Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Electrie  rates  and  service VI  506 

Bloomer  EL  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  Refusal  of  Service,  In  re.,  1915 

Electric  service,  refusal  of XV  612 

Brodhead  EL  Co.,  In  re,  1912 

Electric  service X  630 

Browntown  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Electric  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  560 

Bruce  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Electric  rates,  classification  of  moving  picture  arc IX  474 

Burkhardt  Milling  Sc  EL  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914. 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of XV  409 

,  Ross  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service V  139 

Burns  v.  La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.  ef  aZ.,  1911 

Removal  of  telephone  and  electric  poles VI  195 

Cashton  Light  &  Power  Co.,  In  re.,  1908 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility Ill  67 

Caswell  et  al.  v.  City  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.  of  Ft.  Atkinson,  1913 

Electric  and  water  rates XII  260 

Chetek  Light  &  Power  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

Electric  rates,  increase  in II  662 

• , ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  227 

Chilton,  City  of,  v.  Wis.  Elec.  Service  Co.  et  al.,  1908 

Electric  service II  326 

Chippewa  Falls  Water  Wks.  &  Lt.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates V  302 

,  Cunningham  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates V  302 


Cases  Reported 543 

Volume  and  Page 
Chippewa  Valley  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  311 

, ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  increase  in IX  305 

-,  1912 


Electric  rates,  increase  in  for  flaming  arc  lamps IX  500 

, ,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XII  548 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  692 

,  — -,  1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII    19;  444 

Clifton  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  Wenzel  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Electric  service IX  222 

Colby  ct  Abbott  Bldg.  Co.  et  al.  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

, ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Columbus  W.  Sz  Lt.  Comm.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Electric  and  water  rates  and  water  service XI  449 

Commonwealth  P.  Co.  et  al..  In  re  Invest.,  1912  • 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

, ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Connor  Co.,  R.,  In  re  Invest,  of,  1911 

Electric  rates  and  service VIII  80 

Cumberland  Mun.  El.  Ltg.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1909 

Electric  rates,  increase  in IV  214 

Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates,  reasonableness  of V  302 

Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service,  and  water  rates V  397 

, ,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  344 

Delavan  Commercial  Club  et  al.  v.  United  Heat,  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1914 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of / XV  505 

Dodgeville  v.  Dodgeville  El.  Lt.  <k  P.  Co.,  1908 

Street   lighting   rates,   reasonableness   of,    adequacy   of 

I  service II  392 

Dodgeville  EL  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  Dodgeville  v.,  1908 

Street  lighting   rates,   reasonableness   of,    adequacy   of 

service II  392 

Dodgeville  El.  Lt.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Electric  service XIII  642 

Douglas  et  at.  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  337 

, ,  1914 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of XIV  381 


544  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
,       IV.     ELECTRIC  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Durand  Li.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Electric  rates,  increase  in VI  334 

Eagle  River  Lt.  Sz  W.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of VI  521 

Electric  Theater  et  al.  v.  Lodi  El.  Lt.  Plant,  1911 

Electric  rates  and  meters VII  745 

Elroy  Mun.  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Plant,  Kittleson  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Water  and  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of ...XIV  485 

Endeavor  El.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  448 

Equitable  EL  Lt.  Co.,  City  of  Lake  Geneva  v.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  meter  rental : VI  203 

,  Douglass  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  337 

, v.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of XIV  381 

Evansville  Mun.  EL  Lt  Sc  W.  Plant,  In  re  Invest,  1912 

Electric  and  water  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  197 

Filter  et  at  v.  III.  Northern  Utilities  Co.,  1914 

Electric  service XV  383 

Ft  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Electric  and  water  rates,  increase  in XII    260;  729 

Fox  River  Milling  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1907 

Electric  rates,  increase  in II  135 

Gilmanton  Mill  d:  El.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIV  152 

Grand  Rapids  EL  Co.,  In  re  Purchase,  1914 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  plant XV  258 

Green  Bay  v.  Green  Bay  G.  So  El.  Co.,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  324 

Green  Bay  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  Green  Bay  v.,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of... ;..XII  324 

Greenwood  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  rates,  minimum  bill VI  60 

Harrington  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  power  rates,  reasonableness  of VI  64 

Hood  et  al.  v.  Monroe  EL  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of XIV  227 

Illinois,  N.,  Utilities  Co.,  Filber  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Electric  service XV  383 

In  re  AppL  Alma  Electric  Light  Co.,  1907 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  144 

Arcadia,  Village  o/,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of -v -^^  ^^^ 

Bloomer  EL  Lt.  Plant,  1911 

Electric  rates  and  service VI  506 


Cases  Reported  545 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Appl.  Browntown  Mun.  Lf.  Plant,  1914 

Electric  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  560 

Bruce  W.  <Sc  Lt.  Comm.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  classification  of  moving  picture  arc IX  474 

Burkhardt  Milling  &  El  P.  Co.,  1914 


Electric  rates,  readjustment  of XV  409 

—  Chetek  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.,  1908 

Electric  rates,  increase  in II  662 

,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  227 

—  Chippewa  Valley  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1908 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  311 

,  1912 

Electric  rates,  increase  in IX  305 

,  1912 

Electric  rates  for  flaming  arc  lamps IX  500 

-,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XII  548 

—  Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  19lB 

Electric  and  water  rates  and  water  service XI  449 

—  Cumberland  Mun.  Ltg.  Plant,  1909 

Electric  rates,  increase  in IV  214 

—  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  P.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service,  and  water  rates.... V  397 

,  1913 


Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  344 

-  Durand  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  increase  in VI  334 

-  Eagle  River  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of VI  521 

-  Endeavor  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  448 

-  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913 

Electric  and  water  rates XII  260;  729 

-  Fox  River  Milling  Sc  P.  Co.,  1907 

Electric  rates,  increase  in II  135 

-  Gilmanton  Mill  &  El.  Plant,  1914 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIV  152 

-  Greenwood  Mun.  Lt.  Plant,  1910 

Electric  rates,  minimum  bill .....VI  61 

-  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910 

Electric  and  water  rates V  555 

-  La  Crosse  Gas  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1907 


Electric  rates,  increase  in II  3 

-,  1909 

Electric  rates,  payment  in  advance IV  142 

etal.,  1911 

Interpretation  of  accounting  terms  in  contract VIII  18 

.1911 


Electric,  gas  and  heating  rates VIII  138 

18 


546  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IV.     ELECTRIC  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

In  re  Appl.  Lake  Mills  Lt.  &  W.  Comm.,  1912 

Electric  and  water  utilities,  financial  management XI  160 

Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  minimum  bill VI  53 

Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913 


Ordinance  for  removal  of  poles  and  wires  of  electric 

utility,  reasonableness  of  ordinance ..XI  293 

—  Manitowoc,  City  of,  as  El.  &  Water  Utility,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates,  adjustment  of... XV  212 

—  McGowan  El.  Li.  ScP.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  325 

—  Medford  Light  <fc  Heating  Co.,  1908 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  421 

—  Menasha,  City  o/,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  424 

—  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  <Sc  Tr.  Co.,  1909, 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of ..Ill  778 

—  Merrill  Railway  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1907 

Electric  rates,  increase  in II  148 

—  Milton  W.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1914   ' 

Electric  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  206 

—  Monticello  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of ; XI  265 

—  ML  Horeb  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  rates,  increase  in VI  44 

—  Mt.  Horeb  H.  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII       '  653 

—  Neshkoro  Lt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  52 

—  New  Glarus  Mun.  El.  Lt.  <k  W.  Plant,  1912 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XI  53 

—  North  Milwaukee  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1909 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of IV  89 

—  Portage  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1908 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  258 

—  Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  increase  in VI  717 

—  Rhinelander  P.  Co.,  1915 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XV  783 

—  Richland  Center  El.  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Plant,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates.... XIV  590 

—  Sheboygan  Ry.  <Sc  El.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates — street  lighting XIV  208 

—  Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Li.  System,  1909 

Electric  rates Ill  484 


Cases  Reported  547 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Appl.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.  Plant,  1914 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of XV  189 

United  Heat,  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  of  Delavan,  1914  ' 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of XV  505 

Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.,  1910 


Electric  and  street  railway  rates,  readjustment  of V  190 

-  Whitehall,  Village  of,  1912 

Electric  rates,  increase  in IX  479 

-  Whitewater  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of ■. XV  517 

-  Windsor  Co.,  H.  T.,  1910 

Electric  rates,  increase  in V  171 

Withee,  Village  of,  1914 


Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  704 

In  re  Brodhead  El.  Co.,  1912 

Electric  service X  630 

In  re  Cashton  Light  &  Power  Co.,  1908 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility Ill  67 

In  re  Darlington  El.  Lt.  Sc  W.  P.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service,  and  water  rates V  397 

In  re  Invest.  Bayfield  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913 

Electric  and  water  service XI  686 

Chippewa  Falls  W.  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates .....V  302 

Chippewa  Valley  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  692 

,1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII    19;  444 

Colby  &  Abbot  Bldg.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Commonwealth  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

— ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

i?.  Connor  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates  and  service VIII  80 

Dodgeville  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  service XIII  642 

Evansville  Mun.  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912 

Electric  and  water  rates XI  197 

Janesville  EL  Co.,  1913  , 

Electric  service XII  570 

La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.,  1908 

Electric  service II  670 

Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  259 


548  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IV.     ELECTRIC  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

In  re  Invest.  Madison  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1914 

Gas  and  electric  service,  refusal  of  service : XIII  518 

Mosinee  El  Li.  &  P.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  712 

Milw.  Electric  Rates,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

,  1912 


Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

-  Molitor  Sc  Hummell  Realty  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

-  Mosinee  El.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates  for  pumping,  reasonableness  of XIV  743 

-  Neshonoc  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  service XIII  637 

-  Northwestern  Lt.  (Sc  P.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of VII  59 

-  Oconto  El.  Co.  &  Peoples  Land  &  Mfg.  Co.,  1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  584 

-  Plankinton  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

,  1912 


Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

-  Railway  Exch.  Bldg.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

—  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  et  al,  1912 


Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sc  El  Plant,  1914 

Water  and  electric  rates,  management XV  534 

Wells  P.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

-. ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

In  re  Joint  Appl  Waupaca  El  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co.  and  Waupaca,  1912 

Electric  street  lighting VIII  586 

,  1912 

Electric  street  lighting , IX  310 

In  re  Kaukauna  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  and  gas  utilities VIII  409 

In  re  Kaukauna  G.  El  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XII  189 


Cases  Reported  549 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  and  gas  rates,  reasonableness  of VII  152 

In  re  Manitowoc,  City  o/,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates,  readjustment  of XIV  697 

In  re  Merrill  Ry.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  utilities,  standards  of  service... VIII  270 

In  re  Pierce,  Geo.  M.,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XII  88 

In  re  Purchase  El.  PI.  of  Prairie  du  Sac  Mill  &  Lt.  Co.,  1914 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XV  360 

• Lt.  PI.  of  United  Heat,  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  by  Vill.  of  Sharon, 

1914 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XV  238 

Grand  Rapids  El.  Co.,  1914 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XV  258 

In  re  Refusal  of  Service  by  Bloomer  El.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1915 

Electric  service,  refusal  of XV  612 

In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Point  Ltg.  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  gas  and  electric  service XIV  350 

In  re  Standards  for  Gas  and  Electric  Service,  1908 

Standards  of  service  for  gas  and  electric  utilities II  632 

,  1913 

Standards  of  service  for  gas  and  electric  utilities. XII  418 

In  re  Valuation  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1914 

Municipal  acquistion  of,  electric  utility. XIII  452 

Janesville  Electric  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Electric  service XII  570 

Jefferson  Mun.  EL  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  and  water  rates V  555 

Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914 

Electric,  gas  and  heating  rates XV  121 

Kaukauna,  City  of  v.  Kaukauna  Gas,  EL  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  service V  695 

Kaukauna  Gas,  EL  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  City  of  Kaukauna  v.,  1910 

Electric  service , V  695 

,  In  re,  1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  and  gas  utilities VIII  409 

, ,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XII  189 

Kenosha  EL  Ry.  Co.  v.  Kenosha  G.  &  EL  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  119 

Kenosha  G.  8c  El.  Co.,  Kenosha  El.  Ry.  Co.  v.,  1911        ^  • 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  119 

Kittleson  et  aL  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  LL  Plant,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates XIV  485 

La  Crosse  Gas  Sc  El.  Co.  et  aL,  Burns  v.,  1911 

Electric  and  telephone  poles,  removal  of VI  195 

,  In  re  AppL,  1907 

Electric  rates,  increase  in II        3 


550  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IV.     ELECTRIC  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.   Rates  and  Service. 

La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.  1909 

Electric  rates,  payment  in  advance IV  142 

etal, ,  1911 

Interpretation  of  accounting  terms  in  contract VIII  18 

, ,  1911 

Electric,  gas  and  heating  rates VIII  138 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1908 

Electric  service II  670 

La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.  etal..  Burns  v.,  1911 

Electric  and  telephone  poles,  removal  of VI  195 

La  Crosse  W.  P.  Co.  et  ai.  In  re  Appl.,  1911 

Interpretation  of  accounting  terms  in  contract VIII  18 

Lake  Geneva,  City  of,  v.  Equitable  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  meter  rental VI  203 

Lake  Mills  Li.  &  W.  Comm.,  In  re  Appl,  1912 

Electric  and  water  utilities,  financial  management XI  160 

Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1910 

Electric  rates,  minimum  bill VI  53 

Lodi  El.  Lt.  Plant,  El.  Theater  et  at.  v.,  1911 

Electric  rates  and  meters VII  745 

Madison,  City  of,  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Ordinance  for  removal  of  poles  and  wires  of  electric  utility, 

reasonableness  of  ordinance... XI  293 

Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.  City  of  Madison,  1913 

Ordinance  for  removal  of  poles  and  wires  of  electric 

utility,  reasonableness  of  ordinance XI  293 

,  In  re,  1911 

Electric  and  gas  rates VII  152 

,  In  re,  1914 

Electric  and  gas  service,  refusal  of XIII  518 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Electric  and  gas  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  259 

,  State  Journal  Prig.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Electric  and  gas  rates  and  service IV  501 

Manitowoc,  City  of,  v.  Manilowoc  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service V  360 

,  as  El.  Utility,  In  re  Appl,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates,  adjustment  of XV  212 

-,  In  re,  1914 


Electric  and  water  rates XIV  697 

Manitowoc  El  Lt.  Co.,  In  re  Valuation,  1914 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XIII  452 

,  Manitowoc,  City  of,  v.,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service V  360 

Mayville  Specialty  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Northwestern  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of VII  59 


Cases  Reported  551 


Volume  and  Page 
McGowan  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Electric  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  325 

Medford  Light  &  Heating  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1908 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  421 

Menasha,  City  of,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  424 

Menominee  &  Marinette  Lt.  &  Tr.  Co.,  In  re,  1909 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of Ill  778 

Merrill  Railway  &:  Lighting  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1907 

Electric  rates,  increase  in II  148 

,  In  re,  1911 

Electric  utilities,  standards  of  service VIII  270 

Milton  W.  Lt.  8c  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Electric  rates,  minimum  charge ...XIV  206 

Milwaukee  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  The,  Harrington  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of VI  64 

et  al..  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

, ,1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Milwaukee  Electric  Rates,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

. , ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Molitor  Sc  Hummell  Realty  Co.  et  al..  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

. ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Monroe  EL  Co.,  Hood  et  al.  v.,  1914: 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XtV  227 

Monticello  El.  Lt.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  265 

Mosinee  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  712 

, ,  1914 

Electric  rates  for  pumping,  reasonableness  of XIV  743 

ML  Horeb  EL  Lt.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  rates,  increase  in VI  44 

, ,  1914 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  653 

J^eenah,  City  of,  v.  Wis.  Tr.  LL  H.  &  P.  Co.,  1915 

Municipal  acquisition  of  business  of  electric  utility XV  626 

Neshkoro  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  52 

Neshonoc  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Electric  service XIII  637 

Newby  et  al.  v.  Sun  Prairie  Mun.  EL  Plant,  1914 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of XV  189 


552  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IV.     ELECTRIC  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

New  Glarus  Mun.  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  In  re  Appl.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XI  53 

North  Milwaukee  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1909 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of IV  89 

Northwestern  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of VII  59 

,  Mayville  Specialty  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1911 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of VII  59 

Oconto  El.  Co.  et  al..  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  584 

Oshkosh  Savings  cfc  Trust  Co.  et  al..  City  of  Chilton  v.,  1908 

Electric  service II  326 

Peoples  Land  &  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  584 

Pierce,  Geo.  M.,  In  re  Val.  El.  Lt.  Plant  &  Property  of,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XII  88 

Plankinton  El.  Lt.  cfc  P.  Co.  et  at..  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

, ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Portage  El.  Li.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1908 

Electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  258 

Prairie  City  El.  Co.,  Rosencrans  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Electric  rates  and  service XII  413 

Prairie  du  Sac  Mill  Sz  Lt.  Co.,  El.  Pit.  of.  In  re  Purchase,  1914 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XV  360 

Railway  Exch.  Bldg.  Co.  et  al..  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

, ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Red  Cedar  Valley  El.  Co.,  In  re  Appl,  1911 

Electric  rates,  increase  in VI  717 

Rhinelander,  City  of,  v.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  406 

Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co.,  City  of  Rhinelander  v.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  406 

Rhinelander  Power  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1915 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XV  783 

Richland  Center  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  In  re  Appl.,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates XIV  590 

Ripon,  City  of,  v.  Ripon  Lt.  Sc  W.  Co.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates  and  service V  1 

Ripon  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  City  of  Ripon  v.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates  and  service V  1 

Rosencrans  et  al.  v.  Prairie  City  El.  Co.,  1913 

Electric  rates  and  service XII  41 

3 


Cases  Reported  553 


Volume  and  Page 
Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Millg.  Sc  El  P.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service V  139 

Sharon,  Village  of.  El  Pit.  of  United  Heat,Ll  &  P.  Co.,  In  re 
Purchase  o/,  1914 

Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XV  238 

Sheboygan,  City  of,  v.  Sheboygan  Lt.  P.  Sz  Ry.  Co.,  1908 

Electric  rates  and  service II  249 

u.  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co.,  1911 

Electric  rates  and  service,  street  lighting VI  353 

Sheboygan  LI  P.  &  Ry.  Co.,  City  of  Sheboygan  v.,  1908 

Electric  rates  and  service II  249 

Sheboygan  Ry.  SzEl  Co.,  City  of  Sheboygan  v.,  1911 

Electric  rates  and  service,  street  lighting VI  353 

,  In  re  Appl,  1914 

Electric  rates,  street  lighting XIV  208 

Standards  for  Gas  and  Electric  Service,  In  re,  1908 

Standards  of  service  for  gas  and  electric  utilities II  632 

, ,  1913 

Standards  of  service  for  gas  and  electric  utilities XII  418 

State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  Sc  El  Co.,  1910 

Electric  and  gas  rates  and  service IV  501 

Stevens  PL  Ltg.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1914  " 

Electric  rates,  gas  and  electric  service XIV  350 

Stoughton  Municipal  El  Lt.  System,  In  re  Appl,  1909 

Electric  rates Ill  484 

Sun  Prairie  Mun.  El.   Utility,  In  re  Appl,  1914    , 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of XV  189 

,  Newby  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of XV  189 

Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates X  704 

Superior  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al  v.,  1912 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates X  704 

The  M.  E.  R.  ScL.  Co.,  Harrington  et  al  v.,  1910 

Electric  power  rates VI  64 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX,  541;  X,  613 

The  Oshkosh  Savings  Sc  Trust  Co.  et  al.  City  of  Chilton,  v.,  1908 

Electric  service II  326 

United  Heat,  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.  of  Delavan,  In  re  Appl,  1914 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of XV  505 

United  Heat,  Lt.  Sc  Pr.  Co.  El.  Plant,  In  re  Purchase  of  by 
Vill  of  Sharon,  19U 
Municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XV  238 

Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sc  El  Plant,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates,  management XV  534 

Watertown,  City  of,  v.  Watertown  G.  Sc  El  Co.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  street  lighting XIV  604 


554  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IV.     ELECTRIC  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Watertown  G.  <Sc  EL  Co.,  City  of  Watertown  v.,  1914 

Electric  rates,  street  lighting XIV  604 

Waukesha,  City  of,  v.  Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913 

Electric  and  gas  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  100 

Waukesha  G.  &  EL  Co.,  City  of  Waukesha  v.,  1913 

Electric  and  gas  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  100 

Waupaca  EL  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  and  street  railway  rates .V  190 

and  Waupaca,  In  re  Joint  AppL,  1912 

Electric  rates,  street  lighting VIII  586 

-,  1912 


Electric  rates,  street  lighting IX  310 

Waupaca,  In  re  Joint  AppL  Waupaca  EL  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co.  and, 
1912 

Electric  rates,  street  lighting VIII  586 

Wells  P.  Co.  et  al..  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  541 

, ,  1912 

Electric  rates,  reasonableness  of X  613 

Wenzel  et  aL  v.  Clifton  LL  <&:  P.  Co.,  1912 

Electric  service IX  222 

Whitehall,  Village  of.  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Electric  rates,  increase  in IX  479 

Whitewater,  City  of,  v.  Whitewater  EL  LL  Co.,  1910 

Electric  service VI  132 

Whitewater  EL  LL  Co.,  City  of  Whitewater  v.,  1910 

Electric  service VI  132 

,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Electric  rates,  adjustment  of XV  517 

Windsor  Co.,  H.  T.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  rates,  increase  in V  171 

Wis.  Elec.  Service  Co.  et  aL,  City  of  Chilton  v.,  1908 

Electric  service II  326 

Wis.  Tr.LL  H.  &  P.  Co.,  City  of  Neenah  v.,  1915 

Municipal  acquisition  of  business  of  electric  utility XV  626 

Withee,  Village  of.  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Electric  rates,  increase  in XIII  704 

Wylie,F.  M.,  In  re  Refusal  of  Madison  G.  ScEl.  Co.  to  furnish 
service  to,  \^\4i 

Electric  and  gas  service,  refusal  of XIII  518 

V.     ELECTRIC  RAILWAY  CASES 

a.  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity 

In  re  AppL  Milw.  ScFox  River  Valley  Ry.  Co.,  1908 

For  construction  of  line II  580 


Cases  Reported  '  555 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  AppL  Milw.  <Sc  Fox  River  Valley  Ry.  Co.,  1910 

For  construction  of  line V  466 

Milwaukee  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.,  1909 

For  construction  of  line Ill  288 

Milwaukee  &  Fox  River  Valley  Ry.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

For  construction  of  line II  580 

, ,  1910 

For  construction  of  line V  466 

Milwaukee  Lt.  H.  6c  T.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1909 

For  construction  of  line Ill  288 

b.  Rates  and  Service 

AppL  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  of  1905,  to  Street  Rys.,  In  re.,  1906 

Street  railways,  appl.  of  ch.  362,  Laws  1905 — "Report  of 

accidents" I  178 

Bauernfeind  et  aL  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  at.,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

Beuscher  et  aL  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  aL,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

Brown  v.  Janesville  Street  R.  Co.,  1910 

Street  railway  track,  abandonment  of IV  757 

Buergin,  Jr.,  et  aL  v.  Southern  Wis.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Street  railway  service XI  762 

V. ,1913 

Street  railway  service XII  167 

Caledonia,  Town  of,  v.  CM.  <Sc  MiL  EL  Ry.  Co.,  1912 

Interurban  railway  crossings X  420 

V. ,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XI,  564;  XII,  386 

V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  6c  L.  Co.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

Cedar  Grove  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  aL,  1913 

Interurban  railway  and  railroad  crossings,  protection  of.XII  712 

Chicago  6c  M.  E.  R.  Co.,  City  of  Kenosha  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XI  560 

< , v.,  1913 

Interurban  railways,  station  facilities XII  257 

,  T.  M.  E.  R.  6c  L.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Street  railway  facilities,  joint  use  of  tracks XIII  299 

— — ,  Caledonia,  Town  of,  v.,  1912 

Interurban  railway  crossings X  420 

, v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XI  564 

, v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of •. XII  386 

,  Town  of  Pleasant  Prairie  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XI  557 

,  Somers,  Town  o/,  y.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of ...XI,  581;  XII,  377 


556  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
V.     ELECTRIC  RAILWAY  CASES. 

b.   Rates  and  Service. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  Cedar  Grove  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  and  railroad  crossings,  protection  of. .XII  712 
,  New  Berlin  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  and  railroad  crossings,  protection  of.. ..XII  358 

Chippewa  Val.  R.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re,  1914 

Street  railway,   relocation   of  track   and   adequacy   of 

service XIV  713 

Chromaster  v.  M.  N.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Interurban  rates  and  car  service VIII  734 

D. ,  1912 

Interurban  car  service IX  534 

Cusick  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  314 

De  Pere,  City  of,  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1910 

Interurban  tickets V  604 

Deakin  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1912 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of X  306 

Dravo  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Street  railway  suburban  rates XV  330 

Duluth  Street  Ry.  Co.,  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  1 

Eastern  Wis.  R.  &  Lt.  Co.,  In  re  Petition,  1909 

Crossing  of  electric  road  over  steam  road IV     127;  132 

,  Lamb  v.,  1911 

Interurban  railway  rates  and  fare  zones VI  473 

East  Milwaukee,  Village  of,  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.hSc  L.  Co.  et  al.. 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  358 

Elver  V.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1912 

Street   railway   service IX    1;   XI    67 

Finn  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  &  P.  Co.,  1914 

Interurban  railway,  stopping  of  cars XIV  811 

Froehlich  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1910 

Street  railway  service IV  439 

Fullmer  v.  Wausau  Street  R.  Co.,  1909 

Street  railway  rates  and  fare  zones Ill     520;  555 

V. ,  1910 

Street  railway  rates V  114 

V. ,  1914 

Street  railway  rates  and  service XV  246 

Gillett  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  cfc  L.  Co.,  1907 

Street  railway  service I  689 

et  al.  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  337 

Granville,  Town  of,  v.  M.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XI  612 


Cases  Reported  557 


Volume  and  Page 
Green  Bay,  City  of,  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1911 

Street  railway,  extension  of  line VII  715 

Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  City  of  De  Pere  v.,  1910 

Interurban  tickets V  604 

,  Green  Bay,  City  of,  v.,  1911 

Street  railway,  extension  of  line VII  715 

,  Robb  ei  al.  v.,  1912 


Street  railway  track  curves  and  elimination  of  noise VIII  688 

Hiestand  et  al.  v.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1910 

Street  railway  service VI  162 

Howard  ei  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

In  re  Appl.  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  1905,  to  Street  Railways,  1906 

Street  railways,  appl.  of  ch.  362,  Laws  1905,  "report  of 

accidents" I  178 

Manitowoc  &  Northern  Tr.  Co.,  1911 

Interurban  railway  rates VI  395 

T.  M.  E.  R.  &:  L.  Co.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

Waupaca  El.  Lt.  Sc  R.  Co.,  1910 


Street  railway  and  electric  rates V  190 

In  re  Chippewa  Val.  Ry.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914 

Street  railway,   relocation   of  track   and   adequacy   of 

service XIV  713 

In  re  Double  Transfers  in' the  city  of  Milwaukee,  1912 

Street  railways,  double  transfers X     ,  352 

In  re  Interlocking  Plants,  Rules  Governing  the  Construction, 
Maintenance  and  Operation  of,  1913 

Street  railway  and  railroads Ill  78 

In  re  Invest.  La  Crosse  <Sc  0.  St.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Street  railway  service  and  station  facilities VI  124 

M.  N.  R.  Crossings  in  Port  Washington,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossings,  protection  of XII  550 

T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1913 

Street  railway  service XIII  178 

In  re  Milwaukee  Suburban  and  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

In  re  Modification  Milwaukee  Urban  Fare  Decision,  1915 

Street  railway  rates XV  724 

In  re  Petition  Eastern  Wis.  R.  &  Lt.  Co.,  1909 

Crossing  of  electric  road  over  steam  road IV  127;  132 

M.  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

In  re  Southern  Wisconsin  Ry.  Co.,  1907 

Street  railway,  appl.  for  authority  to  issue  bonds II  47 

In  re  West  Algoma  Street  Bridge  in  Oshkosh,  1912 

Electric  railway,  safety  of  bridge VIII  441 


558  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
V.     ELECTRIC  RAILWAY  CASES. 

b.   Rates  and  Service. 

Interlocking  plants,  Rules  Governing  the  Construction,  Main- 
tenance and  Operation  of.  In  re,  1913 

Street  railways  and  railroads XII  718 

Janesville,  City  of  v.  Rockford  &  Interurban  Ry.  Co.,  1912 

Interurban  cars,  routing  of IX  502 

Janesville  Street  R.  Co.,  Brown  v.,  1910 

Street  railway  track,  abandonment  of IV  757 

Jones  V.  Wis.  Ry.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914 

Street  railway  service XIV,  518;  XV,  174 

Kenosha,  City  of,  v.  Chi.  &  Milw.  El.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XI  560 

u, ,  1913 

Interurban  railway,  station  facilities ...XII  257 

V.  Kenosha  El.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Interurban  Railway  service XII  508 

Kenosha  El.  R.  Co.  et  al..  City  of  Kenosha  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  service XII  508 

Koenig  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  337 

La  Crosse  Sz  0.  St.  Ry.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1910 

Street  railway  service  and  station  facilities VI  124 

La  Crosse,  City  of,  et  al.,  Lang  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Street  railway,  abandonment  of  track Ill  292 

La  Crosse  City  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Lang  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Street  railway,  abandonment  of  track Ill  292 

Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  R.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1911 

Interurban  railway  rates  and  fare  zones VI  473 

Lang  et  al.  v.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al.,  1909 

Street  railway,  abandonment  of  track Ill  292 

Manitowoc  &  Northern  Tr.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Interurban  railway  rates VI  395 

MoTtel  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

Martin  v.  So.  Wis.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Baggage,  articles  constituting  personal  baggage VIII  311 

McKenney  et  al  v.  Wis.  Tr.  L.  H.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1914 

Interurban  railway,  stopping  of  cars ...XIV  811 

McLaughlin  v.  Wis.  El  R.  Co.,  1909 

Interurban  passenger  cars,  heating  of Ill  400 

Merrill,  City  of,  v.  Merrill  R.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  1910 

Street  railway,  extension  of  line .V  418 

Merrill  R.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  City  of  Merrill  v.,  1910 

Street  railway,  extension  of  line V  418 

Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1907 

Street  railway  service  and  facilities I  662 


Cases  Reported  559 


Volume  and  Page 
Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1911 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars VIII  295 

u. ,  1912 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars VIII  535 

V. ,  1912 

Street  railway  rates X  1 

V. ,  1912 


Street  railways,  double  transfers X  352 

-  V. ,  1913 

Street  railway  service XI     338;  430 

— ,  et  at.,  Woehsner  v.,  1915 


Street  railway  rates XV  724 

Milwaukee  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  The,  Caledonia,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

V.  Chi.  &  Milw.  El.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Street  railway  facilities,  joint  use  of  track XIII  299 

,  Cusick  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  314 

,  Deakin  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of X  306 

• et  at.,  Dravo  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Street  railway  suburban  rates XV  330 

,  East  Milwaukee,  Village  of,  v.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  358 

,  Froelich  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Street  railway  service IV  439 

,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 


Street  railway  service XIII  178 

-  et  al.,  In  re  Petition,  19i4 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

— ,  Koenig  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  337 

— ,  Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.,  1911 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars VIII  295 

_  ,  1912 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars ..VIII  535 

-  .  1912 

Street  railway  rates X  1 

_  ,  1912 

Street  railways,  double  transfers X  352 

-, v.,  1913 

Street  railway  service XI     338;  430 

-  V.  M.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913 


Street  railway  facilities,  joint  use  of  track..-. XIII  268 

— ,  Pollworth  Co.  v.,  1909 
Street  railway,  stopping  of  cars Ill  392 


560  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
V.     ELECTRIC  RAILWAY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Milwaukee  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.,  The,  Racine,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  service XII  388 

- — , v.,  1914 

Street  railway  service  and  rates XIV  148 

,  Stearns  v.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

,  Strache  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  service Mil  404 

,  Tower  v.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

— '■ — ,  Twenty-Second  Ward  Advancement  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars XIV  788 

, v.,  1915 

Street  car  service XV  593 

,  Washington  Park  Adv.  Assn.  v.,  1911 

Street  railway  service VII  19 

-, et  al.  v.,  1913 

Street  railway  service XIII  178 

,  Waukesha,  City  of ,  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway,  service  and  station  facilities XIII  89 

— et  al.,  Woehsner  v.,  1915 

Street  railway  rates XV  724 

,  Woodmont  Country  Club  v.,  1910 

Interurban  car  service V  525 

Milwaukee  Lt.  Ht.  &  Tr.  Co.  et  al.,  Cusick  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  314 

,  Drauo  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates ! XV  330 

,  East  Milwaukee,  Village  of,  v.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  358 

et  al..  In  re  Petition,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

,  Kenosha,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  service XII  508 

,  Koenig  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  337 

• ,  New  Berlin  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  and  railroad  crossings,  protection  of.XII  358 
,  Schmieder  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII         475 

,  Waukesha,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Street  railway,  service  and  station  facilities XIII  89 

,  Woehsner  i;.,  1915 

Street  railway  rates XV  724 

Milwaukee  N.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Cedar  Grove  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  and  railroad  crossings,  protection  of.XII  712 


Cases  Reported  561 


Volume  and  Page 
Milwaukee  N.  R.  Co.  ef  al.,  Chromasier  p.,  1912 

Interurban  rates  and  car  service VIII  734 

, p.,  1912 

Interurban  car  service IX  534 

,  Granville,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XI  612 

,  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  v.,  1913  ' 

Street  railway  facilities,  joint  use  of  tracks XIII  268 

Milwaukee  N.  R.  Crossings  in  Port  Washington,  In  re  Invest., 
1913 

Interurban  railway  crossings,  protection  of XII  550 

Milwaukee  Suburban  and  Interurban  Ry.  Rates,  In  re,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

Milwaukee  Urban  Fare  Decision,  Modification,  In  re,  1915 

Street  railway  rates XV  724 

Neenah,  City  of,  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Li.  H.  &  P.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Power  of  Commission  with  respect  to  joint  rates  and 

interchange  of  traffic IV  471 

V. ,1911 

Street  railway  rates VI     398;  690 

New  Berlin  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913 

Interurban  railway  and  railroad  crossings,  protection  of.. ..XII  358 

Northwest  Neighborhood  Civic  Club  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc 
L.  Co.,  1913 

Street  railway  ser\ice,  adequacy  of XIII  178 

Paulu  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

Pleasant  Prairie,  Town  of,  v.  Chi.  &  Milw.  El.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XI  557 

Pollworth  Co.  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1909 

Street  railways,  stopping  of  cars Ill  392 

Racine,  City  of,  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  service XII  388 

• V. ,  1914 

Street  railway  service  and  rates XIV  148 

Robb  et  al.  v.  Green  Bay  Tr.  Co.,  1912 

Street  railway  track  curves  and  elimination  of  noise VIII  688 

Rockford  &  Interurban  Ry.  Co.,  City  of  Janesville  v.,  1912 

Interurban  railway,  routing  of  cars IX  502 

,  Schicker  v.,  1911 

Interurban  railway  rates VI  695 

Rodolf  et  al.  v.  So.  Wis.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Street  railway  rates  and  service XII     49;  707 

V. ,  1914 

Street  railway  service XIV  598 

Rules  Governing  the  Construction,  Maintenance  &  Operation 
of  Interlocking  Plants,  In  re,  1913 
Street  railways  and  railroads XII  718 


562  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
V.     ELECTRIC  RAILWAY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Schicker  u.  Rockford  Sz  I.  R.^o.,  1911 

Interurban  railway  rates VI  695 

Schmieder  v.  M.  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

Somers,  Town  of,  v.  C.  Sc  M.  El.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  .of XI  581 

u. ,  1913 

Interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of XII  377 

Southern  Wis.  R.  Co.,  Buergin  et  at.  v.,  1913 

Street  railway  ser\dce XI,  762;  XII,  167 

,  Elver  v.,  1912 

Street  railway  service IX,    1;   XI,    67 

,  Hiestand  et  at.  v.,  1910 

Street  railway  service VI  162 

— — ,  In  re,  1907 

Street  railway,  appl.  for  authoritj^  to  issue  bonds II  47 

,  Martin  v.,  1911 

Baggage,  articles  constituting  personal  baggage VIII  311 

,  Rodolf  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Street  railway  rates  and  service XII     49;  707 

, v.,  1914 

Street  railway  service XIV  598 

South  Milwaukee  et  al.  City  of,  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  ScL.  Co.  et  at., 
1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

Stearns  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

Strache  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  ScL.  Co.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  service : XII  404 

Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Duluth  St.  Ry.  Co.,  1912     ' 

Street  railway  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  1 

The  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  Town  of  Caledonia  v.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

V.  C.  &  M.  EL  R.  Co.,  1913 

Street  railway  facilities,  joint  use  of  tracks XIII  299 

et  al.,  Dravo  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates ' , XV  330 

,  Gillett  v.,  1907 


Street  railway  service I  689 

— ,  In  re  Appl.,  1914 
Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

— ,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 
Street  railway  service XIII  178 

— ,  In  re  Petition,  1914 
Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 


Cases  Reported  563 


Volume  and  Page 
The  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  Milwaukee  v.,  1907 

Street  railway  service  and  facilities ; I  662 

, V.  1911 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars VIII  295 

, v.,  1912 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars VIII  535 

, v.,  1913 

Street  railway  service XI     338;  430 

u.  M.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Street  railway  facilities,  joint  use  of  tracks XIII  268 

,  Pollworth  Co.  v.,  1909 

Street  railway,  stopping  of  cars Ill  392 

,  Racine,  City  of,  v.,  1914 

Street  railway  service  and  rates XIV  148 

,  Stearns  v.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

,  Strache  v.,  1913 

Interurban  railway  service XII  404 

,  Tower  v.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

,  Twenty-Second  Ward  Adv.  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars XIV  788 

, v.y  1915 


Street  railway  service XV  593 

— ,  Washington  Park  Adv.  Assn.  p.,  1911 

Street  railway  service VII  19 

-, v.,  1913 

Street  railway  service .XIII  178 

—  et  al.,  Waukesha,  City  of,  u.,  1913 

Street  railway,  service  and  station  facilities XIII  89 

— ,  Woehsner  v.,  1915 


Street  railway  rates XV  724 

Tower  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  Sc  L.  Co.,  1914 

Interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

et  al.  V. et  al.,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

Twenty-Second  Ward  Adv.  Assn.  u.  T.  M.E.  R.  ScL.  Co.,  1914 

Street  railway,  routing  of  cars XIV  788 

'-  v. ,  1915 


Street  car  service XV  593 

Vosburg  v.  Wis.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1912 

Interurban  rates  and  fare  zones VIII  709 

Washington  Park  Adv.  Assn.  v.  T.  M.E.  R.  &L.  Co.,  ^911 

Street  railway  service VII  19 

v. ,  1913 

Street  railway  service XIII  178 

Waukesha,  City  of,  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &L.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Street  railway,  service  and  station  facilities XIII  89 


564  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
V.     ELECTRIC  RAILWAY  CASES. 

b.   Rates  and  Service. 

Waupaca  El.  Lt.  cfc  R.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  and  street  railway  rates V  190 

,  et  al.y  Wis.  Veterans'  Home  v.y  1915 

Electric  railway,  carrying  of  freight XV  656 

Waupaca,  City  of,  Intervenor,  Wis.  Veterans'  Home  et  al.,  v., 
1915 

Electric  railway,  carrying  of  freight XV  656 

Wausau  Street  R.  Co.,  Fullmer  v.,  1909 

Street  railway  fare  zones  and  rates  of  fare ; Ill    520;   555 

, v.,  1910 

Street  railway  rates V  114 

, u.,  1914 

Street  railway  rates  and  service XV  246 

Wauwatosa,  City  of,  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  6c  L.  Co.  et  at.,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

West  Algoma  Street  Bridge  in  Oshkosh,  //z  re,  1912 

Electric  railway,  safety  of  bridge VIII  441 

West  Allis,  City  of,  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  <Sc  L.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  314 

V. ,  1914 

Street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

West  Allis  Single  Fare  League  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co. 
et  al.,  1912 

Street  railway  rates,  single  fare  limits X  314 

Wisconsin  El.  R.  Co.,  McLaughlin  v.,  1909 

Interurban  railway,  heating  of  passenger  cars Ill  400 

et  al.,  Neenah,  City  of,  v.,  1910 

Electric  railway,  power  of  commission  with  respect  to 

joint  rates  and  interchange  of  traffic IV  471 

et  at.,  Neenah,  City  of,  v.,  1911 

Street  railway  rates VI      398;  690 

,  Vosburg  v.,  1912 

Interurban  rates  and  fare  zones VIII  709 

Wisconsin  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  Jones  v.,  1914 

Street  railway  service XIV,  518-  XV,  174 

Wisconsin  Tr.  L.  H.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  McKenney  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Interurban  railway,  stopping  of  cars XIV  811 

et  al.,  Neenah,  City  of,  v.,  1910 

Power  of  Commission  with  respect  to  joint  rates  and 

interchange  of  tralTic IV  471 

, v.,  1911 

Street  railway  rates VI      398;  690 

Wis.  Veterans'  Home  v.  Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1915 

Electric  railway,  carrying  of  freight XV  656 

Woehsner  v.  City  of  Milwaukee  et  al.,  1915 

Street  railway  rates XV  724 


Cases  Reported  565 


Volume  and  Page 
Woodmont  Country  Club  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  1910 

Interurban  car  service V  525 

VI.     EXPRESS  CASES. 

Rates  and  Service. 

Adams  Express  Co.  et  al.,  Merchants  Sz  Mfrs.  Assn.  of  Mil- 
waukee v.,  1913 

Express  rates  and  service XII  1 

, v.,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

,  Strauss  v.,  1909 

Express  delivery  service Ill  556 

American  Express  Co.  et  at.,  M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

,  Gray  Sc  Zentner  v.,  1914 

Express  rates  on  laundry,  reasonableness  of XIV  817 

,  Merchants  Sc  Mfrs.  Assn.  of  Milwaukee  v.,  1913 

Express  rates  and  service XII  1 

, v.,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

,  Souvenir  Novelty  Co.  v.,  1907 

Reasonableness  of  rules I  731 

,  Strauss  v.,  1909 

Express  delivery  service Ill  556 

Bennison  Sc  Lane  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Sc  Co.  et  at.,  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Sc  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

Cabin's  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Sc  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

Express  Rates,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Express  rates  and  service XII  1 

, ,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

Gray  Sc  Zentner  v.  American  Express  Co.,  1914 

Express  rates  on  laundry,  reasonableness  of XIV  817 

Gross  v.  U.S.  Express  Co.,  1909 

Express  rates,  refund  on  shipments  of  baskets Ill  342 

Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Sc  Co.,  1914 

Express  delivery  service XIII  594 

In  re  Invest.  Express  Rates,  1913 

Express  rates  and  service XII  1 

,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

Jaeger  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Sc  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  Sc  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 


566  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
VI.     EXPRESS  CASES. 

Rates  and  Service. 

Merchants  Sz  Mfrs.  Assn.  of  Milwaukee  v.  Wells  Fargo  Sc  Co. 
et  at.,  1913 

Express  rates,  and  service XII  1 

V.  — ,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

National  Express  Co.  et  al.,  Merchants  &  Mfrs.  Assn.  of 
Milwaukee  v.',  1913 

Express  rates  and  service ..; XII  1 

, v.,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

Northern   Express   Co.   et   al.,   Merchants^   Mfrs.   Assn.   of 
Milwaukee  y.,  1913 

Express  rates  and  service XII  1 

— ,  - —  v.,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

Skiles  Bakery  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

Souvenir  Novelty  Co.  v.  American  Express  Co.,  1907 

Reasonableness  of  rules.... , I  731 

Stern  et  al.  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

Strauss  v.  American  Express  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Express  delivery  service Ill  556 

United  States  Express  Co.  et  al.,  M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al. 
p.  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

,  Gross  v.,  1909 

Express  rates,  refund  on  shipments  of  baskets Ill  342 

,  Merchants  &  Mfrs.  Assn.  of  Milwaukee  v.,  1913 

Express  rates  and  service XII  1 

— -, v.,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

,  Strauss  v.,  1909 

Express  delivery  service Ill  556 

Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  et  al.,  M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 

,  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Express  delivery  service XIII  594 

,  Merchants  Sc  Mfrs.  Assn.  of  Milwaukee  p.,  1913 

Express  rates  and  service XII  1 

. v.,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

Western  Express  Co.  et  al.,  M.  Carpenter  Baking  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1911 
Express  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  1 


Cases  Reported  567 


Volume  and  Page 
Western  Express  Co.  et  ai,  Merchants  <fc  Mfrs.'Assn.  of 
Milwaukee  y.,  1913 

Express  rates  and  service XII  1 

, v.,  1914 

Express  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  666 

VII.     GAS  UTILITY  CASES. 
Rates  and  Service. 

Beloit,  City  of,  v.  Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates  and  service VII  187 

Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.,  City  of,  Beloit  v.,  1911 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates  and  service VII  187 

Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  Jones  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Gas,  electric  and  heating  rates XV  121 

Chippewa  Falls  Water  Works  &  Lt.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1910 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates V  302 

,  Cunningham  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates V  302 

Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  Water  Wks  &  Lt.  Co.,  1910 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates V  302 

Green  Bay,  City  of,  v.  Green  Bay  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates XII  324 

Green  Bay  G.  &  El.  Co.,  City  of  Green  Bay  v.,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates XII  324 

,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Gas  rates,  increase  in V  101 

In  re  AppL  La  Crosse  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1911 

Gas,  electric  and  heating  rates VIII  138 

Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  1908 

Gas  rates,  adjustment  of Ill  163 

,1913 

Gas  rates,  increase  in XIII  325 

In  re  Invest.  Chippewa  Falls  Water  Works  ScLtg.  Co.,  1910 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates V  302 

Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911 

Gas  and  electric  rates VII  152 

,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  259 

,  1914 

Gas  and  electric  service,  refusal  of XIII  518 

In  re  KaukaunaLt.  &  P.  Co.,  1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  gas  and  electric  utilities VIII  409 

In  re  Service  and  Rates  Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  1914 

Gas  and  electric  service,  electric  rates XIV  350 

In  re  Standards  for  Gas  cfc  Electric  Service,  1908 

Standards  of  service  for  gas  and  electric  utilities II  632 

,  1913 

Standards  of  service  for  gas  and  electric  utilities XII  418 


568  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
VII.     GAS  UTILITY  CASES. 

Rates  and  Service. 

Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914 

Gas,  electric  and  heating  rates, XV  121 

KaukaunaLt.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  In  re.,  1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  gas  and  electric  utilities VIII  409 

La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1911 

Gas,  electric  and  heating  rates VIII  138 

Lothrop  et  al.  v.  Sharon,  Village  of,  1912 

Gas  and  water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VIII  479 

Madison  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1911 

Gas  and  electric  rates VII  152 

, ,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  259 

, ,  1914 

Gas  and  electric  service,  refusal  of XIII  518 

— — ,  State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Gas  and  electric  rates  and  service IV  501 

Manitowoc  Gas  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1908 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of Ill  163 

, ,  1913 

Gas  rates,  increase  in XIII  325 

Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1912 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of IX  439 

v. ,  1913 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of XI  309 

Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.  Milwaukee  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1913 

Gas  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  441 

Milwaukee  G.  Lt.  Co.,  City  of  Milwaukee  v.,  1913 

Gas  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  441 

■ ,  Stern  v.,  1913 

Gas  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  441 

Neenah,  City  of  v.  Wis.  Tr.  Lt.  H.  &  P.  Co.,  1911 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of VII  477 

V. ,  1911 

Gas  rates,  increase  in VIII  251 

Portage  American  Gas  Co.,  Yanko  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of ;.: XIII  136 

Racine,  City  of,  v.  Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1911 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of VI  228 

Racine  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  City  of  Racine  v.,  1911 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of VI  228 

Ripon,  City  of,  v.  Ripon  Light  &  W.  Co.,  1910 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates  and  service V  1 

Ripon  Lt.  <k  W.  Co.,  City  of  Ripon  v.,  1910 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates  and  service V  1 

Sharon,  Village  of,  Lothrop  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Gas  and  water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VIII  479 


Cases  Reported  569 


Volume  and  Page 
Sheboygan  G.  Lt.  Co.,  Meyer  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of IX  439 

, v.,  1913 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of XI  309 

Standards  for  Gas  and  Electric  Service,  In  re,  1908 

Standards  of  service  for  gas  and  electric  utilities II  632 

, ,  1913 

Standards  of  service  for  gas  and  electric  utilities XII  418 

State  Journal  Prtg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910 

Gas  and  electric  rates  and  service IV  501 

Stern  v.  Milwaukee  Gas  Lt.  Co.,  1913 

Gas  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  441 

Stevens  Pt.  Ltg.  Co.,  In  re  Service  and  Rates,  1914 

Gas  and  electric  service,  electric  rates XIV  350 

Superior  Commit  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.Lt.  So  P.  Co.,  1912 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates X  704 

Superior  W.Lt.  S:  P.  Co.,  Superior  Commit  Club  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Gas,  electric  and  water  rates X  704 

Waukesha,  City  of,  v.  Waukesha  G.  Sc  El.  Co.,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  100 

Waukesha  G.  &  El.  Co.,  City  of  Waukesha  v.,  1913 

Gas  and  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  100 

Wisconsin  Tr.  Lt.  H.  &  P.  Co.,  Neenah,  City  of,  v.,  1911 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of VII  477 

, i;.,  1911 

Gas  rates,  increase  in VIII  251 

Wylie,  F.  M.,  In  re  Refusal  of  Madison  G.  ScEl.  Co.  to  furnish 
service  /o,  1914 

Gas  and  electric  service,  refusal  of XIII  518 

Yanko  et  al.  v.  Portage  American  Gas  Co.,  1913 

Gas  rates,  readjustment  of XIII  136 

VIII.     HEATING  UTILITY  CASES 

Rates  and  Service. 

Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Thermostats  for  heating  utility X  468 

,  Jones  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Gas,  electric  and  heating  rates .XV  121 

In  re  Appl.  La  Crosse  G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911 

Electric,  gas  and  heating  rates VIII  138 

In  re  Invest.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1912 

Thermostats  for  heating  utiUty X  468 

In  re  Rates  of  Milw.  Central  Heating  Co.  et  al.,  1908 

Heating  rates,  reasonableness  of II  302 

Jones  et  al.  v.  Berlin  Public  Service  Co.,  1914 

Gas,  electric  and  heating  rates XV  121 

La  Crosse  G.  Sz  El.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1911 

Electric,  gas  and  heating  rates VIII  138 


570 


Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 

VIII.  HEATING  UTILITY  CASES. 

Rates  and  Service. 

Milwaukee  Central  Heating  Co.  et  at..  In  re  Rates,  1908 

Heating  rates,  reasonableness  of II  302 

INTERURBAN  RAILWAY  CASES,  see  Electric  Railway  Cases. 

IX.  RAILROAD  CASES. 

a.  Baggage.  i.   Rates  and  Refunds. 

b.  Certificate  of  Convenience  j.  Station  Facilities. 

and  Necessity.  k.   Switch  Connections. 

c.  Classification.  1.  Telegraph  Service. 

d.  Construction.  m.  Tell  Tales. 

e.  Crossings.  n.  Train  Service. 

f.  Culverts.  o.  Transfer  Companies. 

g.  Freight   Packages.  p.  Warehouses.    ♦ 
h.  Head  Lights. 

a.  Baggage. 

Chicago,  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Green  v.,  1911  - 

Articles  constituting  personal  baggage VIII  115 

Green  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Articles  constituting  personal  baggage VIII  115 

Martin  v.  So.  Wis.  Ry.  Co.,  1911 

Articles  constituting  personal  baggage VIII  311 

Southern  Wis.  R.  Co.,  Martin  v.,  1911 

Articles  constituting  personal  baggage VIII  311 

b.  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 

Chicago  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

For  construction  of  line VII  741 

Fairchild  Sc  N.  E.  R.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

For  construction  of  line VII  755 

Great  N.  R.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1909 

For  construction  of  line Ill  266 

In  re  AppL  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1911 

For  construction  of  line VII  741 

Fairchild  &  N.  E.  R.  Co.,  1911 

For  construction  of  line VII  755 

G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1909 

For  construction  of  line Ill  266 

M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910 

For  construction  of  line * V  637 

Minneapolis  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

For  construction  of  line V  637 

c.  Classification. 

Chicago  So  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1914 
Classification   of   farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes.... XI 1 1  751 

Chicago  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  New  York  Fish  Co.  v.,  1908 

Change  in  classification  of  fish  boxes II  613 


Cases  Reported  571 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes. ...XIII  751 

Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,   farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes... XI 1 1     .      751 
Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co. 
et  al.  v.,  1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes. ...XIII  751 

Duluth  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,    gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes....XIII  751 

Fairchild  &  N.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1914 
Classification   of   farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes  ...XIII  751 

Green  Bay  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,    gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes.  .XIII  751 

Illinois  C.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 
Classification   of   farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes.... XI 1 1  751 

Tola  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,    gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes. . .  .XI II  75 1 

Kewaunee,  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co. 
et  al.  v.,  1914 
Classification    of  farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes. ...XIII  751 

La  Crosse  &  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1914 
Classification    of   farm   wagons,    farm    trucks,    gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes.. ..XIII  751 

Marinette,  T.  <fc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,   farm   trucks,    gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes... XI 1 1  751 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern 
Mfg.  et  al.  v.,  1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,    farm   trucks,    gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes. . .  .XI II  75 1 

Mineral  Point  cfc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1914 
Classification   of   farm   wagons,   farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes... XI 1 1  751 


572  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

c.  Classification. 

New  York  Fish  Co.  v.  C.  B.  Sz  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Change  in  classification  of  fish  boxes II  613 

Northern  P.  R.  Co.  et  ah.  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 
Classification   of   farm   wagons,   farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes... XII I  751 

Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 
Classification   of  farm  wagons,   farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes. ...XIII  751 

Stanley,  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,  .  farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes  ... XI 1 1  751 

Waupaca-Green  Bay  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1914 
Classification   of   farm   wagons,   farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes. ...XIII  751 

Wisconsin  &  M.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1914 
Classification   of   farm   wagons,   farm   trucks,   gasoline 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes.... XIII  751 

Wisconsin  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1914 
Classification   of  farm   wagons,   farm  trucks,   gasoUne 

engine  trucks,  logging  trucks  and  extra  wagon  boxes.... XI 1 1  751 

d.  Construction. 

In  re  Appl.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Construction  of  railroad,  approval  of  specification II  386 

W.  Sz  N.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Construction  of  railroad,  approval  of  specification II  362 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  cfc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1908 

Construction  of  railroad,  approval  of  specification II  386 

Wisconsin  &  N.  M.  R.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1908 

Construction  of  railroad,  approval  of  specification II  '  362 

e.  Crossings. 

Albany,  Town  of,  v.  C  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  483 

Aldrich  St.  Crossing,  Milwaukee,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  147 

Almena,  Town  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Relocation  of  highway XIV  128 

V.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  621 

Amherst,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing .^ XV  494 


Cases  Reported 573 

Volume  and  Page 
Ashippun,  Town  of,  v.  M.  S.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  119 

Baldwin,  Village  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  76 

Barron's  Crossing  (2}/2  miles  southwest  of  Comstock),  on  line 
of  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Relocation  of  highway XIV  128 

Beaver  Dam,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  474 

,  Town  of,  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XI  662 

,  Town  Board  of,  v.  M.  S.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  471 

Blackman  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  \^\2 

Protection  of  crossings,  and  station  facilities IX  50 

Blooming  Grove,  Town  of,  Dane  Co.,  Hanchett  Crossing,  In  re, 
1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  45 

Boscobel,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  423 

v. ,  1914 

Protection  of  crossings , XV  296 

Buffalo,  Town  of,  v.  M.  S.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  538 

Byron,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  95 

Cadott,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sz  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Protection  of  crossing XV  596 

Cambria,  Village  of,  et  al,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  501 

Campbell  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Separation  of  grades II  70 

,  Town  of,  v.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Installation  of  crossing XV  21 

Cassville,  Highway  near.  In  re  Invest,  1913 

Relocation  of  highway XIII  86 

Cedar  Grove,  Village  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XII  712 

Champney  et  al.,  M.  S.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Separation  of  grades.... V  592 

Chestnut  St.  Crossing,  Eau  Claire,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII    74;  628 

Chicago  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Blackman  et  al.,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossings  and  station  facilities IX  50 

,  Campbell  v.,  1907 

Separation  of  grades II  70 

,  et  al..  Village  of  Cedar  Grove  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings ^ XII  712 


574 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.   Crossings. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Cleveland,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  729 

,  Crossing  of.  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

'  Separation  of  grades X  618 

et  al.y  Crossing  near  Calvert,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  519 

,  Crossing  in  Beaver  Dam,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  381 

• ,  Crossings  near  Dodgeville,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossings IX  520 

,  Crossings  in  Town  of  Gale,  In  re  Invest.,  19X4 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  445 

,  Crossing  near  Milton  Jet.,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  379 

,  Crossing  North  of  Racine,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Separation  of  grades XIV  454 

,  Deerfield,  Town  of,  p.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings ^ XII  676 

,  Elcho,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  796 

,  Fond  du  Lac,  Town  Board  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  123 

,  Ft.  Atkinson,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  69 

■ , ,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  250 

,  Friendship,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  733 

,  Geneva,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  481 

-r— ,  Gillett,  Town  of,  v.,  1912 

Installation  of  crossing IX  535 

et  al..  Grand  Rapids,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XIII         395 

,  Greenfield,  Town  of,  v.,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  270 

, v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  362 

,  La  Prairie,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing .' XIII         440 

,  Marathon  City,  Village  of,  v.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  28 

et  at.,  Marshfield,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  59 

,  Menomonee,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  549 


Cases  Reported 575 

Volume  and  Page 
Chicago  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Merton,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing ? XI  606 

et  al.,  Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  193 

, v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  344;360;615 

,  Mt.  Horeb,  Village  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossings X  623 

, v.,  1913 

Separation  of  grades XII  495 

et  al..  New  Berlin,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XII  358 

,  Oakfield,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  683 

et  al.  Town  of  Oshkosh  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII         '  372 

,  Racine,  City  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  354 

, v.,  1913 

Separation  of  grades XI  740 

, v.,  1914 

Separation  of  grades XIV  783 

,  Salem,  Town  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  510 

, v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  322 

,  Sparta,  City  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  165 

,  Sullivan,  Town  o/",  y.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  320 

,  Waunakee,  Village  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  380 

,  Wauwatosa,  Town  of,  v.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VII  451;  453;  455;  621;  625 

, y.,  1911 

Restoration  of  highway ...VII  709 

, i;.,  1911 

Separation  of  grades VII    737;  760 

, v.,  1912 

Restoration  of  highway IX  262 

, v.,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  276 

,  West  Allis,  City  of,  v.,  1911 

Separation  of  grades ,VII  493 

,  Westport,  Town  of,  v.,  1912 

Alteration  of  crossing IX  218 

,  Wien,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  435 


576 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.   Crossings. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Wilton,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  598 

. v.,  1914 


Protection  of  crossing XIV  334 

Chicago,  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  Town  of  Campbell  v.,  1914 

Installation  of  crossings XV  21 

et  al.  Crossing  near  Calvert,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  159 

■ ,  In  re  Invest.  Highway  crossing  near  Cassville  on  line  of, 

1913 

Relocation  of  highway XIII  86 

Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Town  of  Albany  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  483 

,  Beaver  Dam,  City  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  474 

,  Beaver  Dam,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  662 

,  City  ofBoscobel  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossings X  423 

, v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossings XV  296 

,  Cambria,  Village  of,  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  501 

,  Columbus,  City  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing,  and  station  facilities IX  576 

,  Crossing  Accident  near  Bardwell,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  471 

■ ,  Crossing  at  Beaver  Dam,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossings IX  523 

,  Crossing  near  Camp  Douglas,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  328 

, ,  1913 

Elimination  of  crossing XII  524 

,  Crossings  in  Cross  Plains,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  343 

,  Crossing  near  New  Lisbon,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  511 

,  Cross  Plains,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  343 

,  Cunningham  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  513 

,  Dent  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  203 

et  al.  Drummond  Road  Crossing  on  lines  of,  in  Eau 

Claire,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  104 


Cases  Reported 577 

Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  M.  6c  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Everts  et  al.  v.,  1907 

Protection  of  crossing I  712 

,  Fall  River,  Village  of,  v.,  1910 

Protection  of  crossing IV  778 

,  Fredonia,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  516 

,  Green  Bay,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  383 

,  Hubbard,  Town  of ,  v.,  1910  • 

Protection  of  crossing VI  128 

, ,1911 

Protection  of  crossing VI  672 

,  In  re  Invest.  Chestnut  St.  Crossing,  on  line  of,  in  Eau 

Claire,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing : XIII  74 

,  In  re  Invest.  Chestnut  St.  Crossing  on  line  of,  in  Eau 

Claire,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing... XIII  795 

,  Lyndon,  Town  of,  v.^  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  251 

,  Madison,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 


Separation  of  grades ..XII  395 

— ,  Marinette,  City  of,  v.,  1910 

Protection  of  crossing V  455 

— ,  Mill  Street  Crossing  at  La  Crosse,  1913 

Separation  of  grades '. .^ XIII  145 

-,  Miller  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossings X  499 

— ,  in  Milwaukee,  Grade  Sep.,  In  re,  1915 
Separation  of  grades XV  762 

—  et  al.,  Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.^  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  193 

-, v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  515 

-  v.,  1913 


Protection  of  crossing XI   344;  350;  353 

— , v.,  1915 

Separation  of  grades .XV  762 

— ,  Mineral  Point  v.,  1912 
Protection  of  crossing VIII  693 

— ,  Monroe,  City  of,  v.,  191A 
Protection  of  crossing ; XIV  176 

—  Mt.  Pleasant,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 


Separation  of  grades XII  749 

— ,  New  Holstein,  Village  of,  v.,  1909 
Protection  of  grossing IV  364 

— ,  Oconomowoc,  City  of,  v.,  1913 
Protection  of  crossing XII  84 

19 


578  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.  Crossings. 

Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  ei  al.,  Oshkosh,  City  of,  v.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VIII    75;  291 

,  Pewaukee,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  658 

,  Racine,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  407 

,  Remington,  Town  of,  v.,  1915 

Construction  of  crossing , XV  609 

,  Rhine,  Town  of,  v.,  1910 

Restoration^  and  maintenance  of  highway V  184 

,  Ripon,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  100 

,  Rueckert  et  al.  v.,  1914: 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  749 

,  Von  Rueden  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  272 

,  Wauzeka,  Town  of,  v.,  1912  , 

Protection  of  crossing ..X  426 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  Almena,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Relocation  of  highway XIV  128 

,  Baldwin,  Village  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing...' XIII  76 

— ' — ,  Barron'' s  Crossing  {2\  miles  southeast  of  Comstock)  on 
line  of.  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Relocation  of  highway XIV  128 

,  Crossing  near  Columbia  Station,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  516 

,  Crossing   in  Eau  Claire,  In  re,  1914 

Separation  of  grades XV  24 

,  Crossing,  Yolo,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  528 

et  al.  Drummond  Road  Crossing  on  lines  of,   in  Eau 

Claire,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  104 

,  Elk  Mound,  Village  of,  u:,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  654 

,  Fairchild,  Town  of,  v.,  1915 

Protection  of  crossing XV  755 

,  Fall  Creek  v.,  1907 

Protection  of  crossing I  310 

,  Hewitt,  Town  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  79 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  733 

,  Lucas,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  592;  XII  703 


Cases  Reported  579 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  Mentor,  Town  of,  i;.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  434 

,  Merritlan,  Village  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  315 

,  Millston,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 


Protection  of  crossing XII  400 

— ,  New  Richmond,  City  of,  v.,  1915 

Protection  of  crossing XV  752 

— ,  St.  Joseph,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  737 

-,  Stanton,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 


Protection  of  crossing XI  595 

• ,  Streeter  et  aL  v.,  1912 

Restoration  of  crossing , X  531 

Cleveland,  Town  of,  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  729 

Columbus  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing  and  station  facilities IX  576 

Couriland,  Town  of,  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings.. XII  501 

Cross  Plains,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossings XIV  343 

Cunningham  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  513 

Deerfield,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  676 

Dent  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914      - 

Protection  of  crossing XV  203 

Division  Street  Crossing  in  Dodgeville,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  367 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  151 

Drummond  Road  Crossing  on  lines  of  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
et  al.  in  Eau  Claire,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  104 

Drummond  Road  Crossing  on  lines  of  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co. 
et  al.  in  Eau  Claire,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing .' XIV  104 

Duluth  S.  S.  <Sc  A.  R.  Co.  et  al..  City  of  Superior  v.,  1911 

Separation  of  grades VI  674 

Eau  Claire,  In  re  Invest.,  Chestnut  St.  Crossing  in,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  74 

,—.1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII         628 

Elcho,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  796 

Elk  Mound,  Village  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  654 


580 '__ Cases  Reported _^___ 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.  Crossings. 

Everts  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Protection  of  crossing I  712 

Fairchild,  Town  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Protection  of  crossing XV  755 

Fall  Creek  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Protection  of  crossing I  310 

Fall  River,  Village  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Protection  of  crossing : IV  778 

Farmington,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  624 

Fernhaber  Crossing  east  of  Schleisingerville,  In  re,  1912 

Separation  of  grades XI  86 

Fitchburg,  Town  of,  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  403 

'   Fond  du  Lac,  Town  Board  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  123 

Ft.  Atkinson,  City  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  69 

-^  V. .  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  250 

Fredonia,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  516 

Friendship,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  733 

Geneva,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  481 

Gillett,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Installation  of  crossing IX  535 

Grand  Rapids,  City  of,  v.  G.  B.  Sz  W,  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  395 

Great  N.  R.  Co.,  Town  of  Superior  v.,  1914 

Construction  of  crossing XV  300 

Green  Bay,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  i?.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings '. XII  383 

Green  Bay  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al..  City  of  Grand  Rapids  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XIII  395 

,  Plover,  Village  of ,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  727 

Greenfield,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  270 

v. ,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing ....; XI  362 

Hanafin  et  al.,  M.  S.  <k  N.  W.  R.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Protection  of  crossing V  592 


Cases  Reported         '_^ 581 

Volume  and  Page 
Hanchett  Crossing,  Town  of  Blooming  Grove,  Dane  Co.,  In  re, 
1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  45 

Happel  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  575 

Hartland  Crossing  on  C.  M.  S:  St.  P.  R.,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  432 

Hewitt,  Town  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  79 

Howard,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  254 

V. ,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  433 

Hubbard,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Protection  of  crossing VI  128 

V. ,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VI  672 

Illinois  C.  R.  Co.,  Town  of  Fitchburg  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  403 

,  Madison,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  608 

, v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  108 

,  Monroe,  City  of ,  v.,  1914: 

Protection  of  crossing.... XIV  118 

,  Montrose,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  613 

et  al,  Mt.  Pleasant,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Separation  of  grades XII  749 

In  re  Appl.  W.  &  N.  R.  Co.  for  Approval  of  Plans,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  322 

In  re  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Crossing  in  Beaver  Dam,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  381 

— ,  Crossing  near  Dodgeville,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  520 

,  Crossing  near  Milton  Jet.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  379 

In  re  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Crossing  Accident  near  Bardwell,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  471 

,  Crossing  at  Beaver  Dam,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  523 

,  Crossing  near  Camp  Douglas,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing ;....IX  328 

,  Crossing  near  New  Lisbon,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  511 

In  re  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Crossing  near  Columbia  Station, 
1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  516 


582  Cases  Reported 

1 ' 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.  *  RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.  Crossings. 

In  re  Crossing  near  Calvert  of  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Protection  pf  crossing VIII  519 

near  Calvert  of  La  Crosse  So  South  Eastern  R.  Co.  et  al.^ 

1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  519 

near  Schleisingerville,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  528 

on  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  in  Eau  Claire,  1914 

Separation  of  grades XV  24 

on  the  Sheboygan  Ry.  &  El.  Co.y  1912 


Protection  of  crossing IX  525 

In  re  Division  St.  Crossing  in  Dodgeville,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  367 

In  re  Fernhaber  Crossing  east  of  Schleisingerville,  1912 

Separation  of  grades , XI  86 

In  re  Grade  Sep.  on  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  in  Milwaukee,  1915 

Separation  of  grades XV  762 

In  re  Hancheit  Crossing,  Town  of  Blooming  Grove,  Dane  Co., 
1914 

Protection  of  crossing ^ XV  45 

In  re  Interlocking  Plants,  Rules  Governing  the  Construction, 
Maintenance  &  Operation  of,  1913 

Railroads  and  street  railways XII  718 

In  re  Invest.  Aldrich  St.  Crossing,  Milwaukee,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  147 

Barron's  Crossing  (2  3^  miles  southwest  of  Comstock)  on 

line  of  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Relocation  of  highway XIV  128 

Chestnut  St.  Crossing,  Eau  Claire,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  74 

,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  628 

C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Crossing  near  Camp  Douglas,  1913 

Elimination  of  crossing XII  524 

Crossings  in  Cross  Plains,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  343 

of  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  733 

Crossing  near  Calvert  of  C.  B.  <Sc  Q.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  159 

of  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 


Separation  of  grades X  618 

,  Gale,  Town  of,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing....' XIV  445 

-,  North  of  Racine,  1914 


f 


Separation  of  grades XIV  454 


Cases  Reported 583 

Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Invest.,  Crossing  South  of  Mukwonago,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  32 

of  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  Yolo,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  528 

,  Division  St.  Crossing  in  Dodgeville,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  151 

Drummond  Road  Crossing  on  lines  of  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 

Co.  et  al.  in  Eau  Claire,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  104 

on  lines  of  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.  in  Eau 

Claire,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  104 

Hartland  Crossing  on  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  432 

Highway  near  Cassville,  1913 

Relocation  of  highway XIII  86 

Mill  St.  Crossing,  at  La  Crosse,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  145 

Vine  St.  Crossing  on  line  of  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co. 

in  Marshfield,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  110 

In  re  Marinette  Avenue  Crossing  in  Marinette,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  200 

In  re  Mill  St.  Crossing  at  La  Crosse,  1912 

Separation  of  grades VIII       •  422 

In  re  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Crossing  near  Dresser  Jet.,  1912 

Relocation  of  crossing IX  339 

In  re  Mt.  Morris  Ave.  Crossing  at  Wautoma,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  365 

In  re  Richfield  Crossing  Accident  on  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  287 

In  re  Sheboygan  Ry.  Crossing  Facilities,  1912 

Separation  of  grades VIII  467 

In  re  South  Commercial  St.  Crossing  at  Neenah,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  463 

Kewaunee,  G.  B.  Sz  W.  R.  Co.,  Village  oj  Luxemburg  v.,.  1909 

Protection  of  crossing ...IV  244 

La  Crosse  Sc  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al..  In  re  Crossing  near  Calvert, 
1912 
Protection  of  crossing VIII  519 

La  Prairie,  Town  of,  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  440 

Ladysmith,  City  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI     325;  554 

Lake  Superior  T.  Sc  Tr.  R.  Co.  et  al..  City  of  Superior  v.,  1911 

Separation  of  grades VI  674 

Lebanon,  Town  of  {Dodge  Co.),  M.  S.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  v.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VI  424 


584       Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.  Crossings. 

Lincoln,  Town  of,  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Restoration  of  crossing X  531 

Lisbon,  Town  of,  M.  S.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Protection  of  crossing V  592 

Lucas,  Town  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  592;  XII  703 

Luxemburg,  Village  of,  v.  K.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Protection  of  crossing IV  244 

Lyndon,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  251 

Madison,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Separation  of  grades XII  395 

V.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  608;  XV  108 

Maple  Grove,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Separation  of  grades XII  686 

Marathon  City,  Village  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  28 

Marinette,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Protection  of  crossing V  455 

Marinette  Avenue  Crossing  in  Marinette,  In  re,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  200 

Marshfield,  City  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  59 

-  Town  of,  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossings XV  207 

Menomonee,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  549 

Mentor,  Town  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  434 

Merrillan,  Village  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  315 

Merton,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  606 

Miller  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  499 

Millston,  Town  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings ..'. XII  400 

Mill  Street  Crossing  at  La  Crosse,  In  re,  1912 

Separation  of  grades •. VIII  422 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  145 

Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  360 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX     193;  515 


r  — T 


Cases  Reported 585 

■  Volume  and  Page 
Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  ef  al,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  344;  350;  353 

V. ,  1915 

Separation  of  grades XV  762 

Milwaukee  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  The,  et  al..  City  of  Milwaukee  v., 
1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  193 

, v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  344;  350;  353 

v.,  1915 


Separation  of  grades XV  762 

Milwaukee  L.  H.  <Sc  Tr.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.  Crossings  near  Muk- 
wonago  on  line  o/,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XIII       ^     32 

et  al..  Town  of  New  Berlin  y.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XII  358 

Milwaukee  N.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Village  of  Cedar  Grove  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XII  712 

Milwaukee,  S.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Town  of  Ashippun  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  119 

,  Town  Board  of  Beaver  Dam  y.,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  471 

-,  Town  of  Buffalo  y.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  538 

,  Town  of  Lebanon  {Dodge  Co.),  v.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VI  424 

V.  Town  of  Lisbon  et  al.,  1910 

Protection  of  crossing.... V  592 

Milwaukee,  Town  of,  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  615 

Mineral  Point,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  693 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Almena,  Town  of,  v., 
1913 

Protection  of  crowing XI  621 

,  Amherst,  Town  of,  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  494 

,  Byron,  Town  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  95 

,  Cadott,  Village  of,  v.,  1915 

Protection  of  crossing XV  596 

,  Crossing  near  Dresser  Jd.,  In  re,  1912 

Relocation  of  crossing IX  339 

,  Farmington,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  624 

,  Happel  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  575 

,  Howard,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  254 


586 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.  Crossings. 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Howard,  Township  of, 
p.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  433 

,  In  re  Invest.  Crossings  near  Mukwanago  on  line  of,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XIII  32 

,  Lady  smith.  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing ..XI     325;  554 

, ,  Maple  Grove,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Separation  of  grades XII  686 

■ et  al.,  Marshfield,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XII  59 

, v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  207 

et  al.,  Oshkosh,  City  o/,  y.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  291 

et  al.,  Oshkosh,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  372 

,  Parkhill  v.,  1912 


Protection  of  crossing,  station  facilities,  train  service XI  1 53 

— ,  Polk,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  589 

— ,  -Richfield,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  586 

-, v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  623 

— ,  St.  Croix  Falls,  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII    '       529 

— ,  Somerset,  Town  o/,  i^.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  730 

— ,  Spencer,  Village  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XII  525 

-, v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing , XIV  108 

-,  Thorp,  Village  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  609 

— ,  Unity,  Village  of,  v.,  1913 


Protection  of  crossings,  train  service XIII  430 

— ,  Vine  St.  Crossing  on  line  of,  in  Marshfield,  In  re  Invest. ^ 
1914 

Protection  of  crossing ;.XIV  110 

— ,  Water  ford.  Town  of,  v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  436 

— ,  Wayne,  Town  of,  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  493 

— ,  Wheaton,  Town  of,  v.,  1915 
Protection  of  crossing XV  667 


Cases  Reported 587. 

Volume  and  Page 
Minneapolis,  St.  P.  cfc  5.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Wolf  v.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  615 

Monroe,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  176 

V.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  118 

Montrose,  Town  of,  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  613 

Mt.  Horeb,  Village  of,  u.  C.  &  N.  W.  R,  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossings X  623 

V. ,  1913 

Separation  of  grades XII  495 

Mt.  Morris  Avenue  Crossing  at  Wautoma,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  365 

Mt.  Pleasant,  Town  of,  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Separation  of  grades XII  749 

Mukwanago,  Crossings  South  of.  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XIII  32 

New  Berlin,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XII  358 

New  Holstein,  Village  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Protection  of  crossing .....IV  364 

New  Richmond,  City  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Protection  of  crossing XV  752 

Northern  P.  R.  Co.  et  al..  City  of  Superior  v.,  1911 

Separation  of  grades VI  674 

Oakfield,  Town  of,  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  683 

Oconomowoc,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  84 

Oshkosh,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing ,VIII  75 

V. e/aZ.,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing. VIII  291 

Oshkosh,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Protection  of  crdssing XII  372 

Parkhill  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing,  station  facilities,  train  service XI  153 

Pewaukee,  Town  of,  u.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  658 

Plover,  Village  of,  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  727 

Polk,  Town  of,  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  589 

Racine,  City  of,  v.  C  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  354 

v. ,  1913 

Separation  of  grades .....XI  740 


588 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.   Crossings. 

Racine,  City  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Separation  of  grades XIV  783 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing .....XII  407 

Remington,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Construction  of  crossing XV  609 

Rliine,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Restoration  and  maintenance  of  highway '....V  184 

Richfield,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  586 

u. ,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  623 

Richfield  Crossing  Accident  on  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  In  re,  1911 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  287 

Richmond,  Town  of,  v.  W.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing \ XIV  546;  XV  309 

Ripon,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  100 

Roddis  Lbr.  cfc  Veneer  Co.,  Rose  v.,  1907 

Restoration  and  protection  of  crossing I  307 

Rose  V.  Roddis  Lbr.  Sc  Veneer  Co.,  1907 

Restoration  and  protection  of  crossing I  307 

Rueckeri  et  at.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIII  749 

St.  Croix  Falls,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.    R.    Co., 
1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  529 

St.  Joseph,  Town  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  737 

Salem,  Town  of,  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912.. 

Protection  of  crossing... X  510 

V. ,  1913  « 

Protection  of  crossing XI  322 

Schleisingerville,  Crossing  near.  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  528 

Sheboygan  Ry.  Crossing  Facilities,  In  re,  1912 

Separation  of  grades VIII  467 

Sheboygan  Ry.  Sc  El.  Co.,  Crossing,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing IX  525 

Somerset,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  730 

South  Commercial  St.  Crossing  at  Neenah,  In  re,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing VIII  463 

Sparta,  City  of,  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing XI  165 


Cases  Reported 589 

Volume  and  Page 
Spencer,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings XII  525 

V. ,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  108 

Stanton,  Town  of,  u.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  595 

Streeter  ei  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Restoration  of  crossing X  531 

Sullivan,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing ." XIV  320 

Superior,  City  of,  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Separation  of  grades VI  674 

Superior,  Town  of,  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Construction  of  crossing XV  300 

The  Milwaukee  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al..  City  of  Milwaukee,  u.  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  193 

, v.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossings '. XI  344 

, v.,  1915 

Separation  of  grades XV  762 

Thorp,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  609 

Town  Board  of  Beaver  Dam  v.  M.  S.  &N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  471 

Unity,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing,  train  service XIII  430 

Vine  St.  Crossing  on  line  of  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  in 
Marshfield,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  110 

Von  Rueden  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  272 

Waterford,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  436 

Waunakee,  Village  of,  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XII  380 

Wauwaiosa,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  mi 

Protection  of  crossing VII    451;  453;  455;  621;  625 

V. ,  1911 

Restoration  of  highway VII  709 

v. ,1911 

Separation  of  grades Vll    737;  760 

P. ,  1912 

Restoration  of  highway IX  262 

v.— — ,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  267 

Wauzeka,  Town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  426 

Wayne,  Town  of,  u.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  493 


590  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

e.  Crossings. 

West  Allis,  City  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Separation  of  grades VII  493 

Westport,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Alteration  of  crossing IX  218 

Wheaton,  Town  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Protection  of  crossing XV  667 

Wien,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  435 

Wilton,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Protection  of  crossing XI  598 

— -  V. ,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  334 

Wisconsin  &  N.  R.  Co.,  Town  of  Richmond  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XIV  546 

-- — ,  In  re  Appl.  for  Approval  of  Plans,  1912 

Separation  of  grades IX  322 

,  Town  of  Richmond  v.,  1914 

Protection  of  crossing XV  309 

Wolf  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  615 

Yolo,  Crossing  of  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  In  re  Invest., 
1912 

Protection  of  crossing X  528 

f.  Culverts. 

Chicago  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Williams  v.,  1914  • 

Reconstruction  of  culverts XV  366 

Williams  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Reconstruction  of  culverts XV  366 

g.  Freight  Packages. 

Chicago  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.  Southern  Wis.  Cheese  Men's 
Protective  Assn.  et  al.  v.,  1909 

•   Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  cheese Ill  459 

et  al..  Wis.  Butter  Mfgrs.  Sc  Milk  Prod.  Prot.  Assn.  v., 

1910 
Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  butter  and 

eggs IV  494 

Chicago,  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Southern  Wis.  Cheese  Men's 
Prot.  Assn.  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  cheese Ill  459 

,  Wis.  Butter  Mfrs.  Sc  Milk  Prod.  Prot.  Assn.  v.,  1910 

Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  butter  and 
'    eggs.... IV  494 


Cases  Reported  591 


Volume  and  Page 
Illinois  C.  R.  Co.  el  al.,  Southern  Wis.  Cheese  Men's  Prot. 
Assn.  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  cheese Ill  459 

,  Wis.  Butter  Mfrs.  &  Milk  Prod.  Prot.  Assn.  v.,  1910 

Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  butter  and 

eggs IV  491 

In  re  Minimum.  Charges  on  Package  Freight,  1907  • 

Minimum  charges , II  34 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Wis.  Butter  Mfrs. 
cfc  Milk  Prod.  Prot.  Assn.  v.,  1910 
Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  butter  and 

eggs IV  494 

Southern  Wis.  Cheese  Men^s  Protec.  Assn.  et  al.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co. 
et  al,  1909 

Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  cheese Ill  459 

Wholesale  Cheese  Dealers  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  et  al.  v. 
W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909 

Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  cheese Ill  459 

Wisconsin  Butter  Mfrs.  Sc  Milk  Prod.  Prot,  Assn.  v  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1910 
Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  butter  and 

eggs IV  494 

Wisconsin  C.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Southern  Wis.  Cheese  Men's  Prot. 
Assn.  et  al.  v.,  1909 
Regulations  for  labels  on  freight  packages  of  cheese Ill  459 

h.  Headlights  (Locomotive  Headlights) 

In  re  Invest.  Locomotive  Headlights,  1912 

Locomotive  headlights,  merits  of XI  137 

Locomotive  headlights.  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Locomotive  headlights,  merits  of XI  13^7 

* 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

A.  H.  Stange  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI     274;  725 

A.  S.  Badger  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  434 

Ahnapee  Veneer  Sc  Seating  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  106 

v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IV  109 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs... V  643 

■ v. ,  1912 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IX  482 

Alart  Sc  McGuire  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rate  on  cucumbers  and  onions,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund II  340 


592  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Allen  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Rates  on  Christmas  trees,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XII  95 

Allen  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Demiftrage  charges  and  terminal  facilities VI  14 

Allen  Seed  Co.  u.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1915 

Rates  on  peas  and  beans,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  641 

American  Cigar  Co.  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908 

Joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness  of II  807 

Arpin  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of V  441 

Arries  &  Peckhaw  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R:  Co.,  1911 

Transit  privileges,  restoration  of VII  131 

Bacon  Co.  et  al..  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain : Ill     185;  370 

Bacon  {E.  P.)  &  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain IX       62;  468 

Badger  Basket  &  Veneer  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  492 

Badger  Co.  u.  M.  St.  P.  &S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber. V  729 

v. ,1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  125 

u. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  cf  lumber XI  434 

Bailey  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  heating  apparatus XII  699 

Baldwin  El.  Lt.  <Sc  Fuel  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co., 
1907 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of I  ,  767 

Barker  <Sc  Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  141 

et  al.  V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

et  al.  V. ,  1915 

Rates  on  saw  logs  and  bolts,  resonableness  of  and  re- 
fund  ^ XV  645 

Barkhausen  Coal  &  Dock  Co.  et  al.  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Switching  charges,  absorption  of XIV  172 

Barnes  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood IV  478 

Barney  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  brick IV  775 


Cases  Reported  593 


Volume  and  Page 
Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  ef  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  ai, 
1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

Bqrtlett  &  Son  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  AT.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

et  at..  V. ,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill     370;  451 

Bayfield  Transfer  Ry.  Co.,  Wachsmuth  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  minimum  weight XIV  253;  601 

Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Si.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,   reasonableness  of  and  refund II  700 

V. .  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  645 

Beaver  Dam  Malleable  Iron  Works  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St..  P.  R.  Co., 
1908 

Rates  on  castings,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II    #  703 

Bell  &  Co.  V.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  430 

Benesch  Brothers  v.  C.  cfc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron Ill  383 

Berger-Criltenden  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

u. ,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

Big  Falls  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Konopatzke  v.,  1912 

Establishment  of  joint  rates VIII  556 

Big  Four  Canning  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914 

Rates  on  box  shooks,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  84 

Blackwell  &  Kaiser  v..  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  267 

Block-Pollak  Iron  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron VI     205;  548 

Blodgett  Milling  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain X  377 

V. ,  1914 

Absorption  of  switching  charges  on  grain  and  refund  on 

shipments XIII  782 

V. ,  1914 

Refund  on  shipment  of  buckwheat XIV  771 

Borden  Co.  v.  L.  C.  Sc  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Establishment  of  concentration  rates  and  refund  on  ship- 
ment of  tobacco XI  439 

Bowar  et  al.  v.  C &  S.  C.^R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Establishment  of  joint  rates VI  693 

Brandel  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  motor  boat , IV  498 

Brittingham  Sc  Young  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  528 


594  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.   Rates  and  Refunds. 

Brittingham  &  Young  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and  reduction  of  rates VIII  131 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber , IV  772 

Britton  Cooperage  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill     386;  388 

Brooks  Sc  Ross  Lbr.  Co.  et  ai.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Broughton  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain V  432 

Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and  reduction  of  joint 

rates V,   647;  655;  663 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  car  stakes,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  204 

V. ,  1915 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund , XV  569 

Brown  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P..  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al, . 
1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  581 

Browndeer  Lbr.  &  Fuel  Co,  v.  G.  B.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  slab  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  138 

Buell  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Passenger  rates,  reasonableness  of I  508 

V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Passenger  rates,  reasonableness  of I  324 

BuswellLbr.  &  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs VI  217 

Callaway  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Rates  on  coke,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  694 

Campbell  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Rates  on  pine  trimmings,  reasonableness  of I  197 

Cantwell  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  paper V  293 

Capital  Fence  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913 

Rates  on  wire  fencing,  barb  wire,  staples  and  nails,  rea- 
sonableness of  and  refund XII  756 

Carlson  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of II  705 

Car  Service  and  Demurrage  Rules,  In  re,  1912 

Demurrage  rules VIII  579 

Cazenovia  Sc  Sauk  C.  R.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

4 

Division  of  joint  rates XIII  744 

■ et  al.  Pounder  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  219 


Cases  Reported  595 


Volume  and  Page 
Cazenovia  &  Sauk  C.R.  Co.  v.  Schmitt  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Establishment  of  joint  rates VI  693 

Central  Wis.  Traffic  Bur.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  521 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Milw.  v.  C.  B.  <Sc  Q.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1909 

Joint  rates  on  grain IV  80 

Chapter  362,  Laws  of  1905,  In  re  Consir.,  1905 

Reduced  rates  to  homeseekers I  1 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  American  Cigar  Co.  v.,  1908 

Joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness  of II  807 

,  Arries  &  Peckham  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Transit  privileges,  restoration  of VII  131 

— — ,  Bacon  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

, v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

et  al.,  Bailey  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  heating  apparatus XII  699 

,  Barker  &  Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  141 

, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of '. XIV  628 

,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

.  Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

,  Bartlett  &  Son  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

, 17.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill     370;  451 

,  Benesch  Bros,  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron Ill  383 

,  Berger-Crittenden  Co.  v.,  1908  ^ 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

, v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

et  al..  Big  Four  Canning  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  box  shooks,  reasonableness  of  and  refund .....XIV  84 

,Blodgett  Milling  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain X  377 

, v.,  1914 

Absorption  of  switching  charges  on  grain,  and  refund XIII  783 

, v.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipment  of  buckwheat XIV  771 

et  al.,  Bowar  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Establishment  of  joint  rates VI  693 

,  Brandel  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  motor  boat IV  498 

et  al.,  Brittingham  Sc  Young  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  528 

V 


596  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Broughton  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain V  432 

et  al.j  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  of  shipments  of  lumber  and  reduction  of  joint 

rates V  647 

,  Buell  v.,  1907 

Passenger  rates,  reasonableness  of I  508 

et  al.,  Callaway  Fuel  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  coke,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  694 

,  Cantwell  Paper  Co,  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  paper V  293 

et  al.,  Qapital  Fence  Co.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wire  fencing,   barb  wire,   staples  and  nails, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XII  75^ 

,  Cazenouia  Sc  Sauk  City  R.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Division  of  joint  rates XIII  744 

et  al.,  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of I  258 

,  Connor  Land  cfc  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  774 

, v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  697 

et  al.,  —  v.,  1913 

Joint  rates  and  service XII  761 

,  Coughlin  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

et  al.,  Crary  v.,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  canned  goods Ill  432 

,  Deeves  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  teaming  expenses  on  carload  of  lumber,  peti- 
tion for,  dismissed VIII  507 

,  Druecker  v.,  1909  \ 

Refund  on  shipments  of  wood Ill  594 

,  Ellis  <Sc  Sons  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  butter  and  eggs Ill  337 

,  Elmore-Benjamin  Coal  Co.  i>.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coal IX  396 

et  al.,  Engesether  y.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  vegetables VIII  504 

r,  Fagg  &  Taylor  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

,  Fergot  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  bolts IV  248 

,  Franke  Grain  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain .'f. Ill  182 


Cases  Reported  597 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Franke  Grain  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

et  al.,  Gablowsky  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and  reduction  of  joint  rates.. ..VIII  544 
,  Goodwillie  Bros,  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  461 

,  Gund  Brewing  Co.  v.,  1909 


Refund  on  shipments  of  beer......... IV  190 

—  ef  al.,  Hagen  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and  reduction  of  joint  rates....  VI 1 1  544 

—  Hale-Mylrea  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  piling X  639 

-, v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal XII  709 

—  et  al.,  Hanowitz  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness  of II  333 

—  et  al.,  H eddies  Lbr.  Co.  y.,  1910 

Joint  rates  on  lumber V  714 

— ,  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  356 

— ,  Higgins  Spring  dc  Axle  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  springs  and  axles IX  180 

—  et  al.,  Hopwood  v.,  1913 


Refund  on  shipment  of  brick XII  217 

—  et  al.,  Houser  v.,  1907 

Rates  on  live  stock,  reasonableness  of I  778 

— ,  Hoyt  &  Bergen  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  live  stock VIII  532 

-,  Jefferson  Brick  &  Tile  Co.  v.,  1912 
Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  waste VIII  553 

—  et  al.,  John  H.  Allen  Seed  Co.  v.,  1915 

Rates  on  peas  and  beans,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  641 

—  et  al.,  John  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  823 

— ,  Jones  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1907 

Group  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of I  520 

— ,  Kamm  &  Co.  v.,  1909 
Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

— ,  Karger  Bros,  v.,  1909 


Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

—  et  al.,  Kieckhefer  Box  Co.  v.,  1912 

Rates  on  boxes,  reasonableness  of XI  101 

—  et  al.,  Kinney  et  al.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of I  124 

—  et  al.,  Konopatzke  v.,  1912 

Establishment  of  joint  rates VIII  556 

—  et  al.,  Konrad  Schreier  Co.  v.,  1910 

Joint  rates  on  barley V  668 


598  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Kraft  Sz  Bros.  Co.  et  al,  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of XV  217 

,  Krull  Commission  Co.  u.^  1912 

Refund  of  demurrage  charges  on  shipment  of  hay IX  6d 

,  Lauer  <Sc  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

• , v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

,  Listman  Mill  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  flour .VI  207 

,  Locke  v.y  1913 

Rates  on  scrap  iron,  reasonableness  of XIII  366 

,  Lyman-Smith  Grain  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

,  Mace  Lime  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  wood Ill  590 

, v.y  1913 

Rates  on  lime,  reasonableness  of XIII  38 

-,  Mason-Donaldson  Lbr.  Co.  p.,  1915 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  575 

,  Mason  &  Martin  v.j  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  live  stock IX  74 

,  Maxson  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  269 

et  al.y  Mayer  v.y  1909 

Refund  on  scrap  iron IV  26$ 

— , 1;.,  1911  ' 

Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron  and  estabUshment  of 

joint  rate VIII  328 

,  McEachron  Co.  v.y  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  potatoes VI  667 

et  al.y  Mears-Slayton  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and  estabUshment  of 

joint  rate VIII  247 

et  al.y  Michel  Brewing  Co.  v.y  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  18 

,  Miller  v.y  1914 

Rates  on  shipment  of  fuel  wood  and  fence  posts,  reason- 
ableness of  and  refund XIV  707 

,  Milwaukee  Sandstone  Co.  v.y  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  stone  paving  blocks XIII  671 

,  Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brewing  Co.  v.y  1910 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of V  546 

• , v.y  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  518 


Cases  Reported  599 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Milwaukee-Western  Fuel  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal Ill  517 

et  al.,  Milwaukee  Western  Mali  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  from  demurrage  charges V      •  437 

et  al,  Minch  v.,  1907 

Joint  rates  on  grain,  establishment  of I  599 

et  al..  Mineral  Pt.  Zinc  Co.  v.,  1911 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  zinc  ore VII  583 

et  al.,  Minneapolis  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IV  206 

,  Mohr-Holstein  Commission  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain .^ : Ill  185 

et  al.,  National  Distilling  Co.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  Hquor,  reasonableness  of 'XI  424 

,  National  Refining  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI    '         326 

,  New  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Co..v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain XI  272 

,  Nor.  Hemlock  &  Haidw'd  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.,  1913 


Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XII  241 

— ,  Northern  Milling  Co.  v.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  hay XIII  468 

— ,  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  slabs,  slab  wood  and  cordwood  VI  222 

-, v.y  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood. XI  400 

-, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  dry  slab  wood  and  edging,  reasonableness  of 

and  refund XIII  775 

— ,  Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v.,  1907 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of .'. II  116 

— ,  Owen  8z  Bros.  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

— , v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill     370;  391 

- v.,  1914 


Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV'  79 

— ,  Pabst  Brewing  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  173 

v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  empty  beer  packages IV  403 

-, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  766 

—  et  al., et  al.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of XIII  42 

-,  Paff  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lime IX  160 

—,, Paine  Lbr.  Co.  Ltd.  v.,  1914 
Demurrage  charges  on  shipments  of  logs XIII  633 


600  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Pape  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coke VIII  566 

et  a!.,  Parfrey  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  empty  cheese  boxes  and  estab- 

Ushment  of  joint  rates  on  same IV     450;  V     551 

et  al.  The  A.  C.  Parfrey  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes IX  517 

et  al.,  Paxton  Sz  Lightbody  Co.  v.,  1910 

Joint  and  local  rates,  discrimination  in  car  service V  531 

,  Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund .....XIV  624 

,  Pietsch  Iron  Works  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  structural  iron VI  540 

et  al.,  Plymouth  Cheese  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of XV  217 

et  al.,  Pounder  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  219 

,  Price  v.,  1907 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of I         .       611 

et  al..  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  of  Wis.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonal^leness  of II  168 

et  al..  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of .XI  365 

, i;.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood....^ ." XIII  735 

, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

,  Pulp  Wood  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and  wood XI  144 

et  al..  Pulp  Wood  Co.  of  Appleton  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  pulp  wood VI  175 

,  Rankin  Sc  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

• ,  Richards  v.,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  sheep Ill  507 

et  al.,  Ringle  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Reduction  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick '. ! VII  170 

• , y.,  1911 

Joint  rates  on  brick  and  tile VII  598 

,  Ripon  Veneer  &  Box  Wks.  i;.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  484 

,  Rowland  &  Son  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  brick IX  163 

,  Runkel,  Dadmun  &  Sullivan  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 


Cases  Reported  601 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  et  a!.,  Schmitt  v.,  1911 

Establishment  of  joint  rates VI  693 

et  at.,  Sette  Sc  Co,  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  excelsior •. Ill  595 

■ , v.,  1914 


Rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  225 

—  et  at.,  Semrad  Bros.  &  Puscti  Brwg.  Co.  v.,  1912       ' 
Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  beer IX  76 

-  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  beer  and  empty  beer  carriers XII  236 

— ,  Shawano  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of II  775 

—,  Sheboygan  Pad.  Co.  v.,  1912 
Rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of X  641 

—  et  at..  Southern  Wis.  Cheesemen's  Prot.  Assn.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of ^ I  143 

— ,  South  MitwaukeeFuet  Sz  Supply  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal,  coke,  etc VII  1 

-  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal  and  coke VIII  473 

-,  So.  Wis.  Sand  &  Gravet  Co.  et  at.  v.,  1912 


Switching  rates  on  gravel  and  sand X  436 

— ,  Standard  Lime  cfc  Stone  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lime VII  149 

-, v.,  1912 

Minimum  carload  weights  and  refund  on  shipments IX  228 

— ,  Stevens  v.,  1914 
Rates  on  rye,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  524 

—  et  al.y  Stevens  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  lumber,  discrimination  in  switching  rates XI  476 

— ,  Stotie,  Danget  cfc  Foss  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  eggs Ill  335 

-,  Stowett  Mfg.  &  Fdry.  Co.  v.,  1911 
Refund  on  shipments  of  hardware VIII  316 

—  et  at.,  St  reveler  et  at.  v.,  1912 

Establishment  of  joint  rates X  409 

-. :;..  1913 


Division  of  joint  rates XII  170 

—  et  at.,  Tinkham  v.,  1909                                                '  ^ 
Refund  on  shipment  of  posts IV  329 

— ,  Torrey  Cedar  Co.  y.,  1912 
Refund  on  shipment  of  poles  and  posts IX  185 

— , v.,  1912 

Concentration  rates  on  poles  and  posts X  461 

— ,  Two  Rivers  Woodenware  Co.  v.,  1909 
Refund  on  shipments  of  logs  and  bolts IV  355 

—  et  at.,  Vatvotine  Oit  Co.  v.,  1908 

Transit  privileges II  232 


602  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RATES  AND  REFUNDS. 

i.   Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.,  1909 

Rehearing  on  order  granting  transit  privileges Ill  364 

et  ah,  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.,  1912 

Reduction  of  rates  on  crushed  stone,  gravel  and  lime IX  87 

, v.,  1912 


Reduction  of  rates  on  crushed  stone,  gravel  and  sand IX  347 

-  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  lime,  reasonableness  of XI  419 

-  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  crushed  stone  and  gravel XIII  368 

-  v.,  1914 

Switching  and  distance  rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of... XI 1 1  650 

-, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  ground  limestone,  reasonableness  of  and  re- 
fund  XIV  579 

-  et  at.,  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.,  y.,  1914  ' 
Rates  on  crushed  stone  and  gravel,  reasonableness  of, 

and  refusal  to  make  refund  ordered  by  Commission XV  479 

— ,  Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.y  1913 
Rates  on  shipments  of  hay,  reasonableness  of  and  refund.. XII  433 

1;.,1914 

Rates  on  lumber  and  wooden  boxes,  reasonableness  of 

and  refund,  jurisdiction  of  Commission XIII  772 

— ,  Wausau  Box  SzLbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 


Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of IV  256 

—  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  335 

-,  —  v.,  1910 
Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  459 

—  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wooden  boxes,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  698 

—  Webb  Produce  Co.  v.,  1908 

Concentration  rates  on  butter  and  eggs Ill  32 

—  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  eggs Ill  -  338 

—  et  at.,  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  logs XIV  703 

— ,  Western  Elevator  Co.  i;.,  1913 
Refund  from  charge  exacted  for  switching  cars  of  coal XII  184 

— ,  White  Rock  Quarry  Co.  v.,  1914 
Refund  on  shipments  of  granite  blocks XIII  669 

—  et  at.,  Whittet  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  195 

—  et  at.,  Wisconsin  Box  Co.  et  at.  v.,  1909 


Concentration  rates  on  rough  lumber Ill  605 


Cases  Reported  603 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Wisconsin  Box  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of IV  256 

, v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  343 

, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  405 

et  al.,  Wisconsin  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and  tile.. XIII  756 
,  Wis.  Lakes  Ice  &  Cartage  Co.,  v.,  1912 

Reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  shipments  of  ice IX  101 

,  - —  v.,  1912 

Reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  ice XI      62;    171 

et  al..  Wis.  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  v.,  1911 

Group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

et  al..  Wis.  Retail  Lbr.  Dealers'  Assn.  v.,  1909 

Establishment  of  joint  rates Ill     471;  589 

et  al..  Wis.  River  Paper  Sc  Pulp  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  wood  pulp VIII  64 

et  al.,  Wright  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark IV  175 

,  Yawkey-Bissel  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber VI  21 

, v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber VI  209 

Chicago,  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

et  al..  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Milw.  v.,  1909 

Joint  rates  on  grain IV  80 

et  al.,  Crary  v.,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  canned  goods Ill  432 

et  al.,  Eckhart  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  781 

et  al.,  NaVl  Refining  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

et  al.  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

et  al.,  Ringle  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Reduction  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick VII  IJO 

, i;.,  1911 

Joint  rates  on  brick  and  tile VII  598 

et  al.,  Wisconsin  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.,.  1914 

Estabhshment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and 

tUe XIII  756 

Chicago,  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  a.,  Ahnapee  Veneer  Sc  Seating 
Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IV  109 


604  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.   Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago,  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  A.  H.  Stange  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs. XI     274;  725 

,  Allen  v.,  1913 

Raj:es  on  Christmas  trees,  reasonableness  of  and  refund.. ..XII  95 
.  Allen  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 


Demurrage  charges  and  terminal  facilities VI  14 

—  et  al.,  American  Cigar  Co.  p.,  1908 

Joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness  of II  807 

—  et  al..  Badger  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  125 

— ,  Barker-Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1913 
Refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

—  et  al.  v.,  1915 

Rates  on  saw  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  re- 
fund  XV  645 

—  et  al.,  Barnes  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood IV  478 

—  et  al.,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

— ,  Beaver  Dam  Malleable  Iron  Wks.  v.,  1908 
Rates  on  castings,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  703 

—  et  al.y  Blackwell  &  Kaiser  p.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  267 

—  Block-Pollak  Iron  Co.  i7.,.1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron VI     205;  548 

—  et  al.y  Borden  Co.  v.,  1913 

Establishment   of   concentration   rates   and   refund   on 

shipment  of  tobacco • XI  439 

—  et  a/.,  Brittingham  Sc  Young  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  528 

-, 17.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  131 

— ,  Britton  Cooperage  Co.  v.,  1909 
Refund  on  shipments  of  logs ...Ill     386;  388 

—  et  al.f  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and  reduction  of  joint 

rates V  655 

—  Buell  p„  1907 

Passenger  rates,  reasonableness  of I  324 

— ,  Buswell  Lbr.  Sc  Mfg.  Co.  p,,  1911 


Refund  on  shipment  of  logs VI  217 

-  Central  Wis.  Traffic  Bur.  p.,  1914 
Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  521 

— ,  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Milw.  v.,  1909 
Joint  rates  on  grain IV  80 


Cases  Reported  605 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1906 

Rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of I  258 

,  Cochrane  Co.  v.^  1908 

Concentration  rates  on  butter  and  eggs ; Ill  1 

,  Columbus  Canning  Co.  v.,  1913 


Rates  on  canned  goods,  reasonableness  of  switching  rates.XII  137 

—  et  al.y  Crary  v.,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  canned  goods Ill  432 

—  et  al.y  Curtis  &  Yale  Co.  p.,  1911 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  sash  and  doors VII  41 

—  et  a/.,  Eau  Claire  Concrete  Co.  v.,  1912 

Rates  on  concrete  blocks,  reasonableness  of IX  82 

-etal.,  Eckhartv.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  781 

— ,  Ellis  Lbr.  Co.  y.,  1914 
Rates  on  hog  fuel,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  527 

—  et  al.f  Engesether  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  vegetables ; VIII  504 

— ,  Fargo  v.,  1914 
Rates  on  stone,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  162 

—  et  a/..  Flambeau  Paper  Co.  v.,  1913 


Reduction  of  joint  rate  and  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp.. XI  699 

-,  Flavian  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  385 

— ,  Francey  Coal,  Stone  Sc  Supply  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coal VIII  477 

— ,  G.  W.  Jones  Lbr.  Co.,  y.,  1911 

Refund  of  demurrage  charges VII  388 

— ,  Goodivillie  Bros,  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  463 

—  et  al.f  Green  Bay  Box  d:  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  362 

— ,  Greengo  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  skimmed  milk,  reasonableness  of XV  532 

— ,  Gregory  Bros,  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II    '  791 

— ,  Greiling  Bros.  Co.  y.,  1914 

Demurrage  charges  on  shipments  of  stone XIV  449 

— ,  Gund  Brewing  Co.  v.,  1914 


Rates  on  bottles,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  82 

—  et  al.,  H eddies  Lbr.  Co.  y.,  1910 

Joint  rates  on  lumber V  714 

— ,  Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1912 
Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  281 

-  Heinz  Co.  v.,  1909     . 

Rates  on  cucumbers  in  brine IV  144 

— ,  Higgins  Spring  cfc  Axle  Co.  v.,  1909 
Refund  on  shipment  of  vehicle  springs IV  384 


606  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago,  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Higgins  Spring  &  Axle  Co.  v., 
1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  vehicle  springs VIII    36;  283 

et  al.  Hopwood  y.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  brick XII  217 

,  Hottelet  Co.  v.,  1910 

Rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains .....V  705 

,  Howey  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  ice  boat Ill  504 

,  Ideal  Lbr.  8z  Coal  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coke IV  .  171 

,  In  re  Appl.,  1911 

Demurrage  charges VIII  101;  278 

International  Harvester  Corporation  v.,  1914 


Refund  on  shipments  of  slag ..XIII  640 

■; v.,  1914 

Rates  on  sand,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  164 

,  Joannes  Bros,  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  groceries Ill  422 

et  al.,  John  H.  Allen  Seed  Co.  v.,  1915 

Rates  on  peas  and  beans,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  641 

et  al.,  John  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  y.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund .....XIV  823 

,  Johns-Mansville  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  flux  stone IV  114 

,  Keogh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1908 

Rates  o;n  excelsior  bolts,  reasonableness  of II  717 

et  al.,  Kieckhefer  Box  Co.  v.,  1912 

Rates  on  boxes,  reduction  of XI  101 

, v.,  1915 

Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  564 

,  Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  597 

, v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes IX  278 

• et  al.,  Konrad  Schreier  Co.  v.,  1910 

Joint  rates  on  barley V  668 

et  al.,  Kraft,  Radtke,  &  Quilling  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  twine XIII  393 

— ■ — ,  Krouskop  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  rye.... VI  178 

, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and  reduction  of  rates.... VI  184 
, u.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber ;..VIII  32 

et  al.,  Leonard  Seed  Co.  v.  1914 

Rates  on  seed  peas,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  97 


Cases  Reported  607 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Lieberman  v.,  1909 

Commutation  rates Ill  330 

,  Lindsay  Bros,  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  agricultural  implements Ill  114 

,  Manson  &  Weinfeld  v.,  1909 


Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  362 

Marinette-Green  Bay  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1912 


Rates  on  excelsior  bolts,  reasonableness  of XI  1 33 

,  Marinette  <Sc  Menominee  Box  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IX  37 

ei  al.,  Mayer  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron  and  establishment  of 

joint  rates >. VIII  328 

et  al.,  Mears-Slayton  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and  establishment  of  joint 

rates VIII  247 

et  al.,  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.,  1909  ^       • 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood Ill  620 

, y.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VI  586 

,  Merrill  Woodenivare  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  54 

• ,  Milwaukee,  County  of,  v.,  1909 

Switching  charges Ill  377 

■ ,  Milwaukee  Structural  Steel  Co.  v.,  1914 

Refund  on  switching  rates  on  building  material XIII  673 

et  al.,  Milwaukee  Western  Malt  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  from  demurrage  charges V  437 

et  at..  Mineral  Point  Zinc  Co.  p.,.  1911 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  zinc  ore VII  583 

,  Mitchell  Lewis  Motor  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  auto  gear  frames XI  ,  709 

,  Moritz  v.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  sand XIII  684 

,  Morse  v.,  1911 


Refund  on  shipment  of  coal VI  531 

—  et  al..  National  Distilling  Co.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  liquor,  reasonableness  of XI      •        424 

—  et  al..  National  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Rates  on  wagons,  track  connections IX  509 

—  et  al..  National  Refining  Co.  et  al.,  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

—  et  al.,  Nelson-Berry  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1907 

Joint  rates  on  slab  wood,  reasonableness  of II  95 

— ,  Nordberg  Mfg.  Co.  y.,  1915 
Rates  on  sand,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  648 

-,  Northern  Wood  Co.  v.,  1913 
Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  706 


608  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Northwestern  Iron  Co.  v.,  1914 
Rates  on  shipment  of  fuel  oil,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund , XIV       .    577 

et  at.,  Oglebay,  Norton  &  Co.  y.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  iron  ore XII  716 

,  Oshkosh  Bottle  Wrapper  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bottle  wrappers IV  333 

,  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.,  1911 


Refund  on  shipments  of  fuel  wood  and  slabs VI  199 

-  et  at.,  Pabst  Brewing  Co.  et  at.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of XIII  42 

-  et  at.,  Parfrey  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  empty  cheese  boxes  and  estab- 
lishment of  joint  rates  on  same IV  450;  V  551 

-  et  at.,  Parfrey  Mfg.  Co.,  The  A.  C,  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes IX  517 

— ,  Pennsylvania  Coal  So.  Supply  Co.  v.,  1914 
Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  746 

-  et  al.,  Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  cedar  posts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  188 

-  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  43 

-  et  al..  Price  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber Ill  467 

-  et  al..  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  i;.,  1913 


Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

—  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood .....XIII  735 

-, 1;.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

— ,  Rates  on  Sand,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 
Rates  on  crushed  stone,  gravel  and  sand XI  98 

—  et  at.,  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood  and  restoration  of 

joint  rates VIII  58 

— , v.,  1912 

Estabhshment  of  joint  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of 

pulp  wood IX  127 

-, v.,  1912 

Authority  of  Commission  to  authorize  specific  refunds... X  632 

—  et  al.,  Ringle  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Reduction  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick VII  170 

-, v.,  1911 

Joint  rates  on  brick  and  tile VII  598 

— ,  Rom  Co.  v.,  1911 
Refund  on  shipments  of  foundry  patterns VIII  325 


Cases  Reported  609 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Ruder  Brwg.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  508 

,  Ruedebush  i;.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  brick,  switching  rates XII  248 

, v.,  1914 


Rates  on  brick,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  92 

-,  Schneider  v.,  1909 
Rates  on  ice,  reasonableness  of IV  71 

—  et  al.,  Schreier  (Konrad)  Co.  v.,  1910 

Joint  rates  on  barley V  668 

-,  Schultz  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal,  feed  and  refuse X  370 

— ,  Schwartz  v.,  1907 
Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  75 

—  et  al.t  Schwoegler  &  Kelly  v.,  1910 

Refund   on   shipments   of  stone   and   estabhshment   of 

joint  rates V  287 

— , v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  stone .....V  635 

-,  Shultis  et  al.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream II  450 

-, v.,  1909 


Rates  on  milk  and  cream Ill  425 

— ,  Sinaiko  Bros,  v.,  1910 
Refund  on  shipments  of  scrap  iron V  426 

—  et  al.,  Somo  River  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  485 

—  et  al..  Southern  Wis.  Cheese  Men's  Prot.  Assn.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of I  143 

— ,  Southern  Wis.  Sand  &  Gravel  Co.  v.,  1913 
Rates  on  sand  and  gravel  and  refund  on  shipments ..XIII  380 

—  et  al..  Standard  Lime  <Sc  Stone  Co.  v.,  1912 

Minimum  carload  weights  and  refund  on  shipment IX  228 

— ,  Stange  Co.  v.,  1910 


Refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  596 

— , v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  274 

— ,  Stange-Ellis  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1908 
Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  773 

— ,  Summit  Stove  Co.  v.,  1913 
Switching  rates  on  scrap  iron  and  refund XII  186 

— ,  Switching  Rates  in  Milw.,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 
Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of XIV  261 

—  et  al.,  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.,  1908 
Transit  privileges II  232 

— , p.,  1909 

Rehearing  on  order  granting  transit  privileges Ill  364 

20 


610 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago,  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Waukesha  Lime  <Sc  Stone 
Co.  v.,  1912 

Reduction  of  rates  on  crushed  stone,  gravel,  lime  and 

sand IX       87;  347 

, v.,  1913 

Rates  on  lime,  reasonableness  of XI  419 

, v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  gravel  and  crushed  stone XIII  368 

, v.y  1913 

Switching  rates  on  wood  and  refund  on  shipments XIII  372 

, v.,  1914 

Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  534 

, v.,  1914 

Switching  and  distance  rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of  XIII  650 
,  ■ v.,  1914 

Rates  on  ground  limestone,  reasonableness  of  and  refund. XIV  718 
,  Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of XIII  527 

,  Wausau  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  337 

, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  457 

,  Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.  i>.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp IX  400 

, v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  417 

, v.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  ground  wood  pulp XIII  690 

et  a/..  Week  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund v XV  53 

• ,  Western  Ind.  Constr.  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  steel  rails VIII  309 

,  Wheeler-Timlin  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  434 

et  al.,  Whittet  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  195 

, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  cordwood IV  480 

,  Winkler  v.,  1909 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream,  readjustment  of Ill  425 

et  al.,  Wisconsin  Box  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Concentration  rates  on  rough  lumber Ill  605 

, u.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV     271;  327 

, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  768 


Cases  Reported  611 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  Wisconsin  Clay  Mfrs. 
Assn.  v.,  1914 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and  tile.XIII  756 
et  al.  Wis.  Pulp  <Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  v.,  1911 

Group  rates,  reasonableness  of VI  436 

et  al.,  Wisconsin  Retail  Lbr.  Dealers'  Assn.  u.j  1909 

Establishment  of  joint  rates Ill     471;  589 

et  al.y  Wisconsin  Sugar  Co.  v.,  1915 

Rates  on  sugar  beets,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  650 

,  Wolf  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  375 

et  al.,  Wright  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark IV  175 

, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  770 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  Ahnapee  Veneer  Sc  Seating 
Co.  p.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs .- IV  106 

,  Arpin  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of V  441 

et  ai,  Bailey  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  heating  apparatus XII  699 

■ ,  Baldwin  El.  Lt.  &  Fuel  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1907 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of I  767 

et  al.,  Barney  v.,  1910 


Refund  on  shipment  of  brick IV  775 

—  et  al.,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

—,  Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  700 

— , v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  645 

—  et  al..  Big  Four  Canning  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  box  shooks,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  84 

—  et  al.,  Blackwell  &  Kaiser  v.^  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  267 

— ,  Campbell  v.,  1906 
Rates  on  pine  trimmings,  reasonableness  of I  197 

—  Carlson  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of II  705 

—  et  al.,  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1906 


Rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of...  I  258 

—  et  al..  Creamery  Package  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1914 
Rates  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund XIV  761 

— ,  Cumberland  Fruit  Pkg.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  287 

-, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  158 


612  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  Daniel  Shaw  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  342 

,  Dells  Paper  &  Pulp  Co.  v.,  1907 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of II  129 

et  al.y  Eau  Claire  Concrete  Co.  v.,  1912 

Rates  on  concrete  blocks,  reasonableness  of IX  82 

• y  Edward  Hines  Lbr.  Co.  v.y  1908 

Rates  on  trainload  shipments  of  logs,  reasonableness  of 

and  refund r II  390 

, v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  14 

,  Elbertson  v.,  1908 


Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  593 

— ,  Emerald  Cooperative  Creamery  v.,  1912 
Refund  on  shipment  of  coal VIII  683 

—  et  al.,  Engesether  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  vegetables ....VIII  504 

— ,  Ewer  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  corn IV  331 

—y  Fountain  Campbell  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1908 
Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  63 

—  et  al.y  Gilman  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bolts....... XII  134 

—  et  al.y  Hopwood  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  brick XII  217 

— ,  Houser  v.,  1907 
Passenger  rates,  reasonableness  of I  510 

—  v.y  1907 

Rates  on  live  stock,  reasonableness  of I  778 

— ,  In  re  Apply  1905 

Concentration  rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of I  16 

— ,  Kaiser  Lbr.  Co.  v.y  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs V  196 

— ,  Kemmeter  v.y  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bolts Ill  518 

— ,  Kenfield  <Sc  Lamoreaux  Lbr.  Co.  v.y  1909 
Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  bolts Ill  600 

— , v.y  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  wood  bolts IV  465 

— , v.y  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bolts XII  192 

—  '-  v.y  1914 

Rates  on  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  294 

—  et  al.y  Krafty  Radtke  d:  Quilling  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  twine XIII  393 


Cases  Reported  613 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  cfc  0.  R.  Co.^  La  Crosse  Water  Power  Co.  p., 
1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  construction  material IV  412 

, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  construction  material VI  173 

et  al.f  Leonard  Seed  Co.  y,,  1914 


Rates  on  seed  peas,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  97 

— ,  Michel  Brewing  Co.  v.,  1910 
Refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  18 

—  New  Dells  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  19U 

Rates  on  ties  and  rails,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  186 

—  New  Richmond  R.  M.  Co.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  610 

—  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  488 

—  ei  al.y p.,  1913  ^ 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain XI  272 

—  Noble  et  al.  v.,  1907 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of 1  767 

—  et  al.^  Parfrey  u.y  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  empty  cheese  boxes  and  joint 

rate V  551 

—  et  al,  Pelletier  Sc  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and  establishment  of 

lower  rates.... V  721 

—  et  al.y  Pulp  <Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

— , v.,  1914 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  joint XIII  735 

— , v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

— ,  Pulp  Wood  Co.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  250 

—  et  al.j  Ringle  et  al.  y.,  1911 

Reduction  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick VII    170;  598 

— ,  Roddis  Lbr.  <Sc  Veneer  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs VI  571 

— ,  Rust  Owen  Lbr.  Co.  y.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs VII  12 

—  et  al.,  Selle  &  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  excelsior Ill  595 

— , v.,  1914 

Rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  225 

— ,  Shaw  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  319 

— ,  Sprague  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  666 

— , v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  289 


614  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  Steven  &  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v., 
1907 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  131 

, v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber Ill  66 

, v.,  1913 


Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XII  131 

— ,  Superior  Crushed  Rock  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  crushed  stone V  449 

-  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  crushed  stone VI  219 

-,  Superior  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1914 


*  Rates  on  slaked  lime,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  160 

,  Uniform  Stave  Sc  Package  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  193 

et  al.,  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.,  1908 

Transit  privileges II  232 

, v.,  1909 

Rehearing  on  order  granting  transit  privileges Ill  364 

et  al.,  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  ground  limestone,  reasonableness  of  and  refund. XIV  579 
,  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of V  95 

,  Wing  &  Getts  v.,  1911 

Concentration  rates  established VI  625 

et  al.,  Wisconsin  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.,  1914 


Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and  tile.. .XIII  756 

Chippewa  Lbr.  Sc  Boom  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  607 

Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906 

Rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of I  258 

Clark  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood VIII  38 

Clark  Sc  Fisher  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Switching  rates  on  gravel  and  sand X  436 

Cochrane  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Concentration  rates  on  butter  and  eggs Ill  1 

Colby  Cheese  Box  Sc  Silo  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  469 

Columbus  Canning  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Rates   on   canned  goods,   reasonableness   of  switching 

rates XII  137 

Connor  Land  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  774 


Cases  Reported  615 


Volume  and  Page 
Connor  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  697 

V.  Laona  Sc  Nor.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Joint  rates  and  service XII  761 

Construction  Material  for  Mfg.  Plants,  In  re  Rates  on,  1906 

Commodity  rates  on  machinery  and  building  material, 

legality  of I  210 

Cook  &  Brown  Lime  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  cement,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  298 

Cordwood,  In  re  Rates  on,  1908 

Rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of II  705 

Coughlin  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

County  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Switching  rates Ill  377 

Crary  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  canned  goods Ill  432 

Creamery  Package  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1914 

Rates  on  cheese  boxes,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  761 

Cumberland  Fruit  Pkg.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  cfc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  287 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  158 

Curtis  Sc  Yale  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Establishment  of  joint  rates VII  41 

Daniel  Shaw  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  342 

Deeves  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  507 

Dells  Paper  &  Pulp  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of II  129 

Diamond  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Druecker  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  wood Ill  594 

Duluth,  S.  S.  <Sc  A.  R.  Co.  et  al,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  v., 
1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

,  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  T^raffic  Assn.  t;.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

■ , v.,  1914 


Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

-, v.,  1914 


Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

Duluth-Superior  Milling  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Switching  charges  on  grain V  598 

D. ,  1911 

Refund  of  excess  switching  charges  on  grain VII  459 


616  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Dunbar  &  W.  R.  Co.,  Harrison  p.,  1908 

Rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of II  801 

Eau  Claire  Concrete  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Rates  on  concrete  blocks IX  82 

Eckhart  v.  C.  B.  <Sc  Q.  R.  Co.  et  a/.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  781 

Edward  Nines  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  train  load  shipments  of  logs,  reasonableness  of 

.  and  refund II  390 

r. ,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  14 

Elbertson  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  .     593 

Ellis  <Sc  Sons  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  butter  and  eggs Ill  337 

Ellis  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  hog  fuel,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  527 

Elmore-Benjamin  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coal..i IX  396 

Emerald  Cooperative  Creamery  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 
1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coal VIII  683 

Engesether  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  vegetables VIII  504 

Ewer  v.C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  corn IV  331 

Fagg  &  Taylor  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain Ill  370 

Fairchild  &  N.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al..  New  Richmond  Roller  Mills 
Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain XI  272 

,  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

et  al..  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

,  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

Fargo  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  stone,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  162 

Fargo,  agent  of  Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 
S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

Fergot  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  bolts ....IV  248 

Flambeau  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &:  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Reduction  of  joint  rates  on  pulp  and  refund XI  699 


Cases  Reported  617 


Volume  and  Page 
Flavian  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  385 

Foster-Latimer  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  i?.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XII  239 

Fountain-Campbell  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  63 

Francey  Coal,  Stone  <Sc  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coal VIII  477 

Franke  Grain  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain.... Ill  182 

V. ,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

Franzen  &  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  bottles,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  77 

Frontz  v.  Mineral  PL  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  stone  tailings,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  217 

Gablowsky  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and  reduction  of  joint  rates...  VI 1 1  544 

Gillette-O'Leary  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  276 

Gilman  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stanley  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bolts :XII  134 

Goodman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX       •       41 

Goodwillie  Bros.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  461 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  463 

Green  Bay  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  Alart  &  McQuire  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  cucumbers  and  onions,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund II  340 

et  al.,  American  Cigar  Co.  v.,  1908 

Joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness  of II  807 

,  Barkhausen  Coal  Sc  Dock  Co.  et  al.,  v.,  1914 

Switching  charges,  absorption  of XIV  172 

et  al.,  Barney  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  brick IV  775 

^  al.,  Bartles-Maguire  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

et  al..  Bell  Sc  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  430 

et  al.,  Brittingham  &  Young  Co.  v.,  1910  ^ 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  772 

,  Browndeer  Lbr.  6c  Fuel  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  slab  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  138 

et  al.,  Crary  v.,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  canned  goods Ill  432 


618  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Green  Bay  Sz  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Gablowsky  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and  reduction  of  joint  rates.. ..VIII  544 
et  at..  National  Refining  Co.  et  al.  p.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

et  al..  Pulp  <Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

, ,  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

, ,  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

et  al.y  Ringle  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Reduction  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick VII    170;  598 

et  al.,  Vesper  Wood  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  silos,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  442 

et  al,,  Waupaca  Sand  So.  Gravel  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  sand  and  gravel,  reasonableness  of XV  482 

et  al.,  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  agricultural  Umestone XIII         471 

et  al.,  Wisconsin  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Estabhshment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and  tile. .XIII  756 
et  at..  Wis.  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  v.,  1911 

Group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

et  al..  Wis.  River  Paper  Sc  Pulp  Co.  v,,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VIII  64 

Green  Bay  Box  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  W.  <Sc  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs Ill  362 

Greengo  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  skimmed  milk,  reasonableness  of XV  532 

Gregory  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  791 

Greiling  Bros.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Demurrage  charges  on  shipments  of  stone XIV  449 

Gund  Brewing  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  190 

v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  bottles,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  82 

G.  W.  Jones  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  of  demurrage  charges VII  388 

Hagen  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and  reduction  of  joint  rates....  VI 1 1  544 

Hale-Mylrea  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pihng X  639 

V. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal XII  709 

Hanvnond-ChandlerLbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs X  654 


Cases  Reported  619 


Volume  and  Page 
Hanowitz  v.  M.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1908 

Rates  on  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness  of II  333 

Harrison  v.  D.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of II  801 

Hazelhurst  Sc  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic 
Assn.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

,  '■ v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

Meddles  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Joint  rates  on  lumber V  714 

Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  356 

et  al.  V.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

p.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  281 

Heinz  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909     " 

Rates  on  cucumbers  in  brine IV  144 

Higgins  Spring  Sc  Axle  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  springs  and  axles IX  180 

V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  vehicle  springs IV  384 

V. ,1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  vehicle  springs  and  reduction  of 

rates VIII    36;  283 

HillsboTo  Sc  N.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Capital  Fence  Co.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wire  fencing,   barb  wire,  staples  and  nails, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XII  756 

Hines  Lbr.  Co.  {Edward)  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  trainload  shipments  of  logs,  reasonableness  of 

and  refund II  390 

u. ,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  14 

Hodges  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber I  300 

Hollister  Amos  Sc  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Holt  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Hopwood  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  brick XII  217 

Hoftelet  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

Houser  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  O.R.  Co.  et  al.,  1907 

Rates  on  live  stock,  reasonableness  of I  778 

V. ,  1907 

Passenger  rates,  reasonableness  of I  510 


620  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Houser  et  al.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of I  124 

Howey  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  ice  boat Ill  504 

Hoyt  &  Bergen  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  live  stock VIII  532 

Hurlbut  Co.  et  al.  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Switching  charges,  absorption  of XIV  172 

Ideal  Lbr.  &  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coke IV  171 

Illinois  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

et  at.,  Chippewa  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of...  I  258 
et  al.,  Mayer  v.,  1909 


Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron IV  268 

—  et  al.,  Minch  v.,  1907 

Joint  rates  on  grain,  establishment  of I  599 

—  et  al..  National  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Rates  on  wagons,  track  connections IX  509 

—  et  al.,  Ringle  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Reduction  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick •. VII    170;  598 

—  et  al.,  Southern  Wis.  Cheesemen^s  Prot.  Assn.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of I  143 

—  et  al.,  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.,  1908 

Transit  privileges 11  232 

— , v.,  1909 

Rehearing  on  order  granting  transit  privileges Ill  364 

—  et  al.,  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.,  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

et  al.,  Wisconsin  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.,  1914 


Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and  tile...  XI 1 1  756 

In  re  Appl.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Demurrage  charges VIII  101 ;  278 

C.  St.  P:  M.  Sz  0.  R.  Co.,  1905 

Concentration  rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of I  16 

M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Demurrage  charges VIII  278 

W.-G.  B.  R.  Co.,  1908 


Division  of  joint  rates  on  potatoes II  291 

In  re  Car  Service  and  Demurrage  Rules,  1912 

Demurrage  rules VIII  579 

In  re  Constr.  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  of  1905,  1905 

Reduced  rates  to  homeseekers I  1 

In  re  Invest.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  Rates  on  Sand,  etc.,  1912 

Rates  on  crushed  stone,  gravel  and  sand,  reduction  of XI  98 


Cases  Reported  621 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Invest.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Switching  Rates  in  Milwaukee,  1914 

Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of XIV  261 

Passenger  Rates  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Passenger  rates,  reasonableness  of I  540 

Rates  on  Live  Stock,  1907 


Rates  on  live  stock,  reasonableness  of I  778 

In  re  Marathon  County  R  Co.,  1911 

Reasonableness  of  rates VII  392 

In  re  Minimum  Charges  on  Package  Freight,  1907 

Minimum  charge  of  package  freight,  reasonableness  of...  1 1  34 

In  re  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co's  Waupaca  Switching  Rates, 
1913 

Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  485 

In  re  Mixed  Carloads  of  Grains  and  Seeds,  1910 

Double  minimum  on  mixed  carloads ....V  711 

Jn  re  Rates  on  Agricultural  Implements,  1913 

Rates  on  agricultural  implements XI  508 

on  Construction  Material  for  Mfg  Plants,  1906 

Commodity  rates  on  machinery  and  building  material, 

legality  of I  210 

on  Cordwood,  1908 

Rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of II  705 

on  Grain,  1906 

•    Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of I  124 

on  Milk  and  Cream,  1908 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream,  reasonableness  of II  450 

,  1908 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream Ill  425 

on  Pulp  Wood,  1908 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of II  168 

on  Waste  Lumber  Products,  1906 

Rates  on  waste  lumber  products,  reasonableness  of I  291 

International  Harvester  Corporation  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  slag XIII  640 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  sand,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  164 

Island  Paper  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of ; I  234 

Ives  Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  fruit V  675 

Jahns  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  hay V  480 

Jefferson  Brick  &:  Tile  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  waste VIII  553 

Joannes  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  groceries Ill  422 

John  Gund  Brewing  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  bottles,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  82 


622  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

John  H.  Allen  Seed  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  el  al.,  1915 

Rates  on  peas  and  beans,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  641 

John  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  823 

V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  701 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  shipments  of  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  re- 
fund  , XIV  542 

John  Week  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  a/.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  53 

Johns-Manville  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  flux  stone IV  114 

Johnson  &  Hill  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  fuel  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  752 

Jones  (G.  W.)  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Group  rates  on  lunlber,  reasonableness  of I  520 

u.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  demurrage  cha<rges VII  388 

Kaiser  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs '. V  196 

Kamm  Sc  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

KargerBros.  u.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

Kaufman  Sc  Co.  v.  W.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  salt VI  497 

Keith  Sc  HilesLbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  57 

Kemmeter  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  bolts Ill  518 

Kenfield  Sc  Lamoreaux  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co., 
1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  bolts.. Ill  600 

V. .  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  wood  bolts IV  465 

V. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bolts XII  192 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  294 

Keogh  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  excelsior  bolts,  reasonableness  of II  717 

Keogh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  excelsior  bolts,  reasonableness  of II  717 


Cases  Reported  623 


Volume  and  Page 
Kewaunee,  G.  B.  (Sc  W,  R.  Co.  et  a/.,  Ahnapee  Veneer  & 
Seating  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IV  109 

,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

,  Brittingham  <Sc  Young  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  772 

Kieckhefer  Box  Co.  u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Rates  on  boxes,  reduction  of XI  101 

V. ,  1915 

Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  564 

Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Co.  u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs Ill  597 

D. ,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes IX  278 

Kinney  et  al.  u.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of I  124 

Konopatzke  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Joint  rates,  establishment  of ^ VIII  556 

Konrad  Schreier  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Joint  rates  on  barley V     '  668 

Krajt  &  Bros.  Co.  et  al.  v.  M.  P.  Sz  N.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of XV  217 

Kraft,  Radtke  Sz  Quilling  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  twine XIII  393 

Krouskop  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  rye VI  178 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and  reduction  of  rates.... VI  184 
V. ,1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  32 

Krull  Comm.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  of  demurrage  charges IX  60 

La  Crosse  Sc  S.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Borden  Co.  v.,  1913 

Establishment  of  concentration  rates  on  tobacco,  and 

refund XI  439 

,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

et  al.,  Nafl  Refining  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

La  Crosse  Water  Power  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  construction  material IV  412 

'■ V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  construction  material VI  173 

Laona  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Connor  Lbr.  Sc  Land  Co.  v.,  1913 

Joint  rates  and  service XII  761 

,  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 


624  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Laona  dc  A''.  R.  Co,  et  al.  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn. 
v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

Lauer  &  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill     185;  370 

Leonard  Seed  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Rates  on  seed  peas,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  97 

Lieberman  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Commutation  rates Ill  330 

Lindsay  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  agricultural  implements Ill  114 

D.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  vehicles  and  agricultural  imple- 
ments  VII  17 

ListmanMillCo.v.C.&N.W.R.Co.,\^n 

Refund  on  shipment  of  flour VI  207 

Locke  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Rates  on  scrap  iron,  reasonableness  of XIII  366 

Loftus-Hubbard  Elevator  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Minimum  weights  on  hay,  reasonableness  of I  91 

■  Lyman-Smith  Grain  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain , Ill  185 

Mace  Lime  Co.  v.  C.  S:  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  wood Ill  590 

V. ,  1913 

Rates  on  lime,  reasonableness  of XIII  38 

Manitowoc  Making  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1906 

Joint  rates  on  barley,  reasonablenesis  of I  69 

Ma/750/?  &  Weinfeld  v.  C.  M.  &  St  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  362 

Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  In  re,  1911 

Reasonableness  of  rates .....VII  392 

• ,  Streveler  v.,  1907 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of;  adequacy  of  train  serv- 
ice and  station  facilities I  831 

' , v.,  1907 

Carload  rates  for  "jimmy"  cars..- II  64 

' , v.,  1912 

Establishment  of  joint  rates X  409 

" et  al, et  al.  v.,  1913 

Division  of  joint  rates... XII  170 

Marinette-Green  Bay  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Rates  on  excelsior  bolts,  reasonableness  of XI  133 

Marinette  Sc  Menominee  Box  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IX  37 


Cases  Reported  625 


Volume  and  Page 
Marinette,  Tomahawk  S:  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.y  Drown  Land  Sc  Lbr. 
Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  581 

,  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  y.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

■ , p.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

Mason-Donaldson  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

—  V. ,  1915 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  575 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Switching  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund..XIV  82 

—  V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  388 

Mason  6c  Martin  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  live  stock IX  74 

Mattoon  R.  Co.  et  at.,  Hanowitz  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness  of II  333 

,  Paxton  6c  Lightbody  Co.  v.,  1910 

Joint  and  local  rates,  discrimination  in  car  service V  531 

Maxson  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  269 

Mayer  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron  and  establishment  of 

joint  rates VIII  328 

V.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  aU  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron ^ IV  268 

McEachron  Co.  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  potatoes VI  667 

MearS'Slayton  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Wis.  6c  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and  establishment  of 

joint  rates VIII  247 

Medford  Fruit  Package  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1906 

Rates  on  berry  boxes,  reasonableness  of I  44 

Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  6c  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood Ill  620 

V. ,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VI  586 

V.  M.  St.  P.  6c  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp IV  360 

V. ,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  paper VIII  78 

V. ,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  slabs IX  39 

u.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  paper II  300 

Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 


626  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and  bolts XI  746 

V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Rates  on  wood  bolts,  legality  of  ante-dated  tariff *I  108 

V. ,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  589 

Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  54 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  805 

Meyer  v.  Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Operation  of  branch  line  and  railroad  rates VII  401 

Michel  Brewing  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  18 

Milk  Sc  Cream,  In  re  Rates  on,  1908 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream,  reasonableness  of Ill  425 

Miller  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  fuel  wood  and  fence  posts,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund XIV  707 

Milwaukee  Bag  Co.  u.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  bags IX  182 

Milwaukee,  County  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Switching  charges Ill  377 

Milwaukee  Sandstone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  stone  paving  blocks XIII  671 

Milwaukee  Structural  Steel  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Switching  rates  on  building  material   and  refund  on 

shipments XIII  673 

Milwaukee-Waukesha  Brewing  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of V  546 

V. ,1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  518 

Milwaukee-Western  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal Ill  517 

Milwaukee  Western  Malt  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al, 
1910 

Refund  from  demurrage  charges V  437 

Minch  V.  C.&  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1907 

Joint  rates  on  grain,  establishment  of I  599 

Mineral  Pt.  <&  N.  R.  Co.,  Frontz  i;.,  1914 

Rates  on  stone  tailings,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  217 

et  al,  Kraft  Sc  Bros.  Co.  et  al,  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of XV  217 

et  al.  Mineral  Point  Zinc  Co.  v.,  1911 

Joint  rates  on  zinc  ore,  establishment  of VII  583 


Cases  Reported  627 


Volume  and  Page 
Mineral  PL  <Sc  N.  R.  Co.,  Plymouth  Cheese  Co.  et  al.  p.,  1914    . 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of XV  217 

,  Sandoval  Zinc  Co.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  lead  and  zinc  ore,  reasonableness  of I  99 

,  Semrad  Bros.  Sc  Pusch  Brwg.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Joint  rates  on  beer,  establishment  of IX  76 

, v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  beer  and  empty  beer  carriers XII  236 

,  Waukesha  Lime  Sz  Stone  Co.  p.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

Mineral  Point  Zinc  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911 

Joint  rates  on  zinc  ore,  establishment  of VII  583 

Minimum  charges  on  Package  Freight,  In  re,  1907 

Minimum  charge  on  package  freight,  reasonableness  of... II  34 

Minneapolis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IV  206 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  A.  S.  Badger  Co.  v., 
1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  434 

et  al.,  Ahnapee  Veneer  Sz  Seating  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IV  109 

, v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  643 

, v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IX  482 

,  E.  P.  Bacon  &  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain IX       62;  468 

,  Badger  Basket  Sc  Veneer  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  492 

et  al..  Badger  Co.  v.,  1910  (?• 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber V  ^  729 

. v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  125 

et  al.,  Barnes  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood IV  478 

et  al.,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

et  al..  Bell  Sc  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  430 

et  al,  Brittingham  Sc  Young  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  772 

et  al..  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and  reduction  of  joint 

rates V    647;  655;  663 

, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  car  staked,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  204 

,  Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1915 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  569 


628  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Brown  Land  &  Lbr. 
Co:  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  581 

et  al.,  Callaway  Fuel  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  coke,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  694 

,  Clark  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood VIII  38 

,  Colby  Cheese  Box  Sc  Silo  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  469 

et  al.,  Crary  v.,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  canned  goods Ill  432 

et  al..  Creamery  Package  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  cheese  boxes,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  761 

et  al.,  Curtis  Sc  Yale  Co.  v.,  1911 

Joint  rates,  establishment  of Vfl  41 

et  al.,  Eau  Claire  Concrete  Co.  v.,  1912 

Rates  on  concrete  blocks .' IX  82 

et  al..  Flambeau  Paper  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  and  reduction  of  joint  rate.XI  699 
,  Foster-Latimer  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XII  239 

,  Franzen  Sc  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  bottles,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XlV  77 

,  Gillette-O'Leary  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  276 

■ ,  Goodman  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs .- IX  41 

,  Hammond-Chandler  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs X  564 

et  al..  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Demurrage  charges VIII  278 

■ ,  Ives  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  fruit V  675 

• ;  Jahns  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  hay V  480 

,  John  Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  701 

■ , v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  542 

• ,  Johnson  &  Hill  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  fuel  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  752 

" et  al.,  Keith  &  Hiles  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  57 

• et  al.,  Kieckhefer  Box  Co.  v.,  1912 

Rates  on  boxes,  reduction  of XI  101 

,  Lindsay  Bros,  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  vehicles  and  agricultural  imple- 
ments  VII  17 


Cases  Reported  629 


Volume  and  Page 
Minneapolis,  Si.  P.  So  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Mason-Donaldson 
Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 
Switching  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund. . XIV  82 

, y.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  388 

et  al.,  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.,  1909 


Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood Ill  620 

-. v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp IV  360 

—  eial., -y.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VI  586 

-, v.,  1911 


Refund  on  shipment  of  paper VIII  78 

-, v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  slabs IX  39 

— ,  Menasha  Woodenware  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  shipments  of  logs  and  bolts XI'  746 

— ,  Merrill  Woodenware  Co.  y,,  1914 

Rates  on  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV    "      805 

—  et  al.f  Milwaukee  Bag  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bags IX  182 

— ,  Morgan  z;.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cordwood VIII  34 

-, v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood IX  165 

— ,  Morton  Salt  Co.  i'.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  salt VI  499 

— ,  Northern  Wood  Co.  v.,  1911 
Refund  on  shipment  of  slabs VIII  62 

—  et  al.,  Oglebay,  Norton  &  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  iron  ore XII  716 

— ,  Osceola  Mill  Sc  Elev.  Co.  v.,  1910 


Refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  483 

— , v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

—  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  hay,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  759 

— ,  Oshkosh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  178 

— ,  Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood VI  669 

— ,  Owen  ScBro.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  buckwheat IX  43 

—  et  al.,  PabstBrg.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of XIII  42 

— ,  Philadelphia  <Sc  R.C.<Sc  I.  Co.  p.,  1912 
Refund  on  shipments  of  coal VIII  542 

—  Phoenix  Wall  Paper  Mfg.  Co.  p.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  print  paper VI  182 


630  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Pierce  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  754;  XV  473 

et  al.  Price  u.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber Ill  467 

— —  et  al.y  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  u.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

, v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

—  v.,  1914 


» 


Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

—  et  al.y  Pulpwood  Co.  of  Appleton  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  pulp  wood VI  175 

— ,  Reitbrock  Land  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.y  1913 
Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  447 

—  et  al.,  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  and  restoration  of  joint 

rates VIII  58 

-, v.,  1911 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of VIII  105 

— , v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood.....N IX  111 

— , v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood  and  establishment  of 

joint  rates IX  127 

— , v.,  1912 

Authority  of  Commission  to  authorize  specific  refunds.. ..X  632 

— , v.y  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  393 

— , v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  car  stakes XIII  84 

— , v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  171 

—  et  at.,  Ringle  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Rates, on  tile  and  brick,  reduction  of VII  170 

— , — -v.,  1911 

Joint  rates  on  brick  and  tile VII  598 

— ,  Rusk  Box  &  Furniture  Co.  y.,  1914 

Switching  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund. ..XIV  136 

—  et  al.,  Schwoegler  Sc  Kelly  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  stone V       287;  635 

— ,  H.  W.  Selle  &  Co.  v.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  excelsior XII  635 

— ,  - —  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of  and  refunds XIV  544 

—  et  al.,  Somo  River  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  485 


Cases  Reported  631 


Volume  and  Page 
Minneapolis,  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Standard  Lime 
&  Stone  Co.  v.,  1912 

Minimum  carload  weights  and  refund  on  shipment IX  228 

,  Sianz  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cheese VI  579 

et  ai,  Stevens  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  lumber,  discrimination  in  switching  rates XI  476 

,  Sullivan  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of,  and  refund XIII  687 

— -  et  al.,  Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.,  1908 

Transit  privileges II  232 

, v.,  1909 

Rehearing  on  order  granting  transit  privileges Ill  364 

et  al..  Vesper  Wood  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  silos,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  442 

,  Waukesha  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  stone IX  167 

, v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  gravel  and  crushed  stone XIII  368 

, v.,  1913 

Switching  rates  on  wood XIII  372 

, v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

, v.,  1914 

Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  534 

, v.,  1914 

Switching  and  distance  rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of ..  .XI 1 1  650 
, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  ground  limestone,  reasonableness  of  and  refund.  .XIV  718 
,  Waupaca  Switching  Rates,  In  re,  1913 

Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  485 

et  al..  Week  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  53 

,  Westboro  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark XIII  378 

• et  al..  Wis.  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and  tile. ..XIII  756 

■ et  al..  Wis.  Fruit  Package  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  fruit  packages V  642 

,  Wis.  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood VIII  16 

,  Wis.  Sugar  Co.  v.,  1915 

Rates  on  sugar  beets,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  650 

Mitchell  Lewis  Motor  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  auto  gear  frames XI  709 

Mixed  Carloads  of  Grains  and  Seeds,  In  re,  1910 

Double  minimum  on  mixed  carloads V  711 

Mohr-Holstein  Comm.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain.. Ill  185 


632  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Mohr-Holsiein  Comm.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

Mohr  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Rates  on  saw  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund  XV  645 

Moore  &  Callaway  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Morgan  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  cordwood VIII  34 

— —  V. ,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood IX  165 

Moritz  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  sand XIII  684 

Morse  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coal VI  531 

Mortensen  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Rates  on  saw  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund.. XV  645 

Mortenson  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  cfc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Morton  Salt  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  salt VI  .   499 

National  Distilling  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Rates  on  hquor,  reasonableness  of XI  424 

National  Mfg.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Rates  on  wagons,  track  connections IX  509 

National  Refining  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

Nekoosa-Edwards  Paper  Co.  {Intervener),  Rhinelander  Paper 
Co.  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood.. IX  111 

Nelson-Berry  Lbr.  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1907 

Joint  rates  on  slab  wood,  reasonableness  of II  95 

New  Dells  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914    ' 

Rates  on  ties  and  rails,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  186 

New  Richmond  R.  M.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  610 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  488 

V.  F.  &  N.  E.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain XI  272 

Noble  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of I  767 

Nordberg  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Rates  on  sand,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  648 

Northern  Hemlock  <Sc  Hardwood  Mfrs.  Assn.  et  al..  Pulp  Sz 
Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  y.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 


Cases  Reported  633 


Volume  and  Page 
Northern  Hemlock  &  Hardwood  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1913 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XII  241 

Northern  Milling  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  hay XIII  468 

Northern  P.  R.  Co.,  Duluth  Superior  Milling  Co.,  et  at. 
v.,  1910 

Switching  charges  on  grain V  598 

, v.,  1911 

Refund  of  excess  switching  charges  on  grain VII  459 

et  at.,  Minneapolis  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IV  206 

et  al..  Pulp  Sz  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

, v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

et  al..  Pulp  So  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

et  al.,  Ringle  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Reduction  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick VII  170 

, i;.,  1911 

Joint  rates  on  brick  and  tile VII  598 

-,  City  of  Superior  v.,  1907 


Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber II  126 

et  al,  Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.y  1914 

Joint  rates  on  logs XIV  703 

et  al.  Wis.  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.y  1914 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and 

tile XIII  756 

Northern  Pine  Mfrs.  Assn.  et  al..  Pulp  <&  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic 
Assn.. v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

Northern  Wood  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  706 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  slabs VIII  62 

Northwestern  Iron  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  fuel  oil,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  577 

Oconto  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Oglebay,  Norton  &  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  iron  ore XII  716 

Osceola  Mill  &  Elev.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  JR.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain '...IV  483 

u. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  hay,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  759 


634 Cases  Reported 

ff 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refuifds. 

Oshkosh  Bottle  Wrapper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bottle  wrappers IV  333 

Oshkosh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  6c  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  178 

Oshkosh  Fuel  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  slabs,  slab  wood  and  cordwood  VI  222 
V. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  400 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  dry  slab  wood  and  edging,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund XIII  775 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  fuel  wood  and  slabs VI  199 

• V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood VI  669 

Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v.  C.  cfc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of II  116 

Owen  &  Brother  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

V. ,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill     370;  391 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  79 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  buckwheat IX  43 

Pabst  Brewing  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  173 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  empty  beeV  packages IV    '  403 

u. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  beer IV  766 

et  al.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of XIII  42 

Paff  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lime IX  160 

Paine  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

,  Ltd.,  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Demurrage  charges  on  shipments  of  logs XIII  633 

Pape  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coke VIII  566 

Parfreu  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  empty  cheese  boxes  and  estab- 
lishment of  joint  rates  on  same IV  450 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  and  j  oint  rates  on  empty  cheese  boxes  V  551 


Cases  Reported  635 


Volume  and  Page 
Parfrey  Mfg.  Co.  {The  A.  C.)  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes IX  517 

Passenger  rates  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  In  re  Invest., 
1907 

Passenger  rates,  reasonableness  of I  540 

Paxton  Sc  Lightbody  Co.  v.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Joint  and  local  rates,  discrimination  in  car  service V  531 

Pelletier  Sc  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber V  721 

Pennsylvania  Coal  Sc  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1914 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of,  and  refund XIV  746 

Perley  Lowe  Sc  Co.  v.  W.  Sc  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  piling XI  108 

Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  624 

v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Rates  on  cedar  posts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  188 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  43 

V.  Wis.  Sc  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Rates  on  cedar  posts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  188 

V.  Wis.  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Rates  on  cedar  posts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  188 

Philadelphia  Sc  R.  C.  Sc  I.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R. 
Co.,  1912 
Refund  on  shipments  of  coal VIII  542 

Phoenix  Wall  Paper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1910 
Refund  on  shipment  of  print  paper VI  182 

Pierce  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  re  fund XIV  754 

v. ,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  473 

Pietsch  Iron  Works  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  structural  iron VI  540 

Plumb  Sc  Nelson  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1906 

Joint  rates,  establishment  of I  19 

Plymouth  Cheese  Co.  et  al.  v.  M.  P.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of XV  217 

Pounder  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  219 

Price  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of I  611 

V.  W.  Sc  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber Ill  467 


636  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  et  al., 
1913 
Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

—  V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  of  Wis.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of II  168 

Pulp  Wood,  In  re  Rates  on,  1908 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of II  168 

Pulpwood  Co.  of  Appleton  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  pulp  wood VI  175 

Pulp  Wood  Co.  v.C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and  wood XI  144 

V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  250 

Rankin  Sc  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  370 

Rates  on  Agricultural  Implements,  In  re,  1913 

Rates  on  agricultural  implements XI  508 

Rates  on  Live  Stock,  In  re  Invest.,  1907 

Rates  on  live  stock,  reasonableness  of I  778 

Reitbrock  Land  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P,  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  447 

Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  and  restoration  of  j  oint 

rates VIII  58 

—  V,  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of VIII  105 

V. ,  1912 

Refund  on  shipments  of  pulp  wood IX  111 

—V. ,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood  and  establishment  of 

joint  rates IX  127 

V. ,  1912 

Authority  of  Commission  to  authorize  specific  refunds.. ..X  632 

V. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  393 

— -  V. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  car  stakes XIII  84 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund .'. XV  171 


Cases  Reported  637 


Volume  and  Page 
Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.,  Meyer  v.,  1911 

Operation  of  branch  line,  railroad  rates VII  401 

Richards  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  sheep Ill  507 

Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Reduction  of  rates  on  tile  and  brick VII  .  170 

V. ,  1911 

Joint  rates  on  brick  and  tile VII  598 

Ripon  Veneer  &  Box  Wks.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  484 

Rock  County  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1906 

Rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of I  258 

Roddis  Lbr.  &  Veneer  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs VI  .571 

Rom  Co.  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  foundry  patterns VIII  325 

Rowland  S:  Son  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  brick IX  163 

Ruder  Brewg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of,  and  refund XIV  508 

Ruedebusch  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  brick,  switching  rates XII  248 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  brick,  reasonableness  of  and  refund ...XIV  92 

Runkel,  Dadmun  &  Sullivan  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  grain Ill  185 

Rusk  Box  &  Furniture  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1914 

Switching  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund. XIV  136 

Rust-Owen  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sz  0.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs VII  12 

Sandoval  Zinc  Co.  v.  M.  P.  &  A^.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Rates  on  lead  and  zinc  ore,  reasonableness  of I  99 

Sawyer  Goodman  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Schmitt  et  al.  v.  C.  &  S.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911 

Joint  rates,  establishmeitt  of VI  693 

Schneider  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Rates  on  ice,  reasonableness  of IV  71 

V.  S.  M.  <Sc  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  posts IX  64 

Schreier  Co.,  Konrad,  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910 

Joint  rates  on  barley V  668 

Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.,  John,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  823 

V.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  701 


638  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Schroeder  Lbr.  Co.,  John,  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  542 

Schultz  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal,  feed  and  refuse X  370 

Schwartz  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  75 

Schwoegler  <k  Kelly  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  stone  and  establishment  of  joint 

rates ; V       287;  635 

Selle  &  Co.  V.  C.  <k  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1914 

Rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  225 

V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

'Refund  on  shipment  of  excelsior * Ill  595 

V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  225 

V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipment  of  excelsior XIII  635 

—  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of  and  refund .XIV  544 

SemradBros.  &  PuschBrwg.  Co.  u.  C.  <k  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Joint  rates  on  beer,  establishment  of IX  76 

V. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  beer  and  empty  beer  carriers XII  236 

Shawano  Lbr.  Co.  v..  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of II  775 

Shaw  Lbr.  Co.,  Daniel,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund ■. II  342 

V. ,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  319 

Sheboygan  Pad  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of X  641 

Shong  <Sc  Son  v..  S.  M.  Sc  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  40 

Shultis  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream,  reasonableness  of II  450 

V. ,  1909 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream Ill  425 

SinaikoBros.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Switching  charge IV  432 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  scrap  iron V  426 

Somo  River  Lbr.  Co.  v.  W.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber i IV  485 

Southern  Wis.  Cheesemen's  Prot.  Assn.  v..  C.  M.  &^t.  P.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1906 

Rates  on  cheese,  reasonableness  of I  143 


Cases  Reported  639 


Volume  and  Page 
Southern  Wis.  Sand  <Sc  Gravel  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1912 

Switching  rates  on  gravel  and  sand X  436 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Rates  on  sand  and  gravel  and  refund  on  shipments XIII  380 

South  Milwaukee  Fuel  &  Supply  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal,  coke,  etc VII  1 

u. ,  1912 

Refund  on  shipments  of  coal  and  coke VIII  473 

SpragueLbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  666 

V. ,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  289 

Standard  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lime VII  149 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Minimum  carload  weights  and  refund  on  shipment IX  228 

Stange  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs V  596 

D. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI     274;  725 

Stange-Ellis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  773 

Stanley,  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.  et  al..  Big  Four  Canning  Co.,  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  box  shooks,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  84 

,  Oilman  Mfg.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  bolts XII  134 

,  Pierce  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  754 

, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  473 

,  Pulp  (Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII       •  735 

, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

,  Schneider  y.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  posts IX  64 

,  Shong  Sc  Son  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  40 

Stanz  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cheese..; VI  579 

Steven  &  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <S:  0.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  131 

V. ,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber HI  66 

V. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XII  131 


640  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Stevens  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  rye,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  524 

Stevens  Lbr.  Co:  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Switching  rates  on  lumber,  discrimination ..XI  476 

Stolte,  Dangel  &  Foss  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  eggs Ill  335 

Siowell  Mfg.  &  Fdry.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  hardware VIII  316 

St  reveler  v.  Maratfion  County  R.  Co.,  1907 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of;  adequacy  of  train  serv- 
ice and  station  facilities I  831 

v. ,  1907 

Carload  rates  for  "jimmy"  cars II  64 

et  al.  V. ,  1912 

Establishment  of  joint  rates X  409 

et  al.  V. ,  1913 

Division  of  joint  rates XII  170 

Sullivan  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  wood : XIII  687 

Summit  Stove  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Switching  rates  on  scrap  iron  and  refund  on  shipment... XI I  186 

Superior  Board  of  Trade  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of I  767 

Superior,  City  of,  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber II  126 

Superior  Crushed  Rock  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund.on  shipment  of  crushed  stone V  449 

V. ,1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  crushed  stone •. "...VI  219 

Superior  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  Si.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  slaked  lime,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  160 

Superior  Terminal  Elevator  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Switching  charges  on  grain V  598 

The  A.  C.  Parfrey  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes IX  517 

Tigerion  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

Tinkham  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  posts IV  329 

Torrey  Cedar  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  poles  and  posts IX  185 

p. ,  1912 

Concentration  rates  on  poles  and  posts X  461 

Trostel  die  Sons  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  tanbark,  reasonableness  of  and  refund 11  761 


Cases  Reported  641 


Volume  and  Page 
Trostel  &  Sons  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark '. Ill  181 

Two  Rivers  Woodenware  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs  and  bolts IV  355 

Underwood  Veneer  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  628 

u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.R.  Co.,  1915 

Rates  on  saw  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  re- 
fund  XV  645 

Uniform  Stave  &  Package  Co.  v.  C.  Si.  P.M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  193 

Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908 

Transit  privileges II  232 

V. ,  1909 

Rehearing  on  order  granting  transit  privileges Ill  364 

Vesper  Wood  Mfg.  Co.  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Rates  on  silos,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  442 

Wachsmuth  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Bayfield  Transfer  Ry.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  minimum  weight. ...XIV  253;  601 
Waste  Lbr.  Products,  In  re  Rates  on,  1906 

Rates  on  waste  lumber  products,  reasonableness  of I  291 

Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  gravel  and  crushed  stone XIII  368 

V. ,  1914 

Switching  and  distance  rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of  XIII  650 
V. ,  1914 


Rates  on  ground  limestone,  reasonableness  of  and  refund.. XIV  579 

—  V. ,  1914 

Rates,  reasonableness  of,  and  refusal  to  make  refund 

ordered  by  Commission XV  479 

—  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Reduction  of  rates  on  crushed  stone,  gravel  and  lime IX       87;  347 

—  V. et  al.,  1913 

Rates  on  lime,  reasonableness  of XI  419 

—  V. et  al.,  1914 

Switching  rates,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  534 

—  V.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  stone IX  167 

—  V. et  al.,  1913 

Switching  rates  on  wood XIII  372 

—  V. tt  al.,  1914 

Joint  raj:es  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

—  D. et  al.,  1914 


Rates  on  ground  Umestone,  reasonableness  of  and  refund.. XIV  718 

Waupaca  G.  B.  R.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1908 

Division  of  joint  rates  on  potatoes II  291 

et  al.,  Milwaukee  Bag  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  ba^s IX  182 

21 


642  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Waupaca  G.  B.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Waupaca  Sand  Sc  Gravel  Co.  v., 
1914 

Rates  on  sand  and  gravel,  reasonableness  of XV  482 

Waupaca  Sand  Sz  Gravel  Co.  v.  Waupaca  G.  B.  R.  Co.  et  at., 
1914 

Rates  on  sand  and  gravel,  reasonableness  of XV  482 

Wausau  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Rates  on  hay,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XII  433 

D. ,  1914 

Rates  on  lumber  and  wooden  boxes,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund XIII  772 

v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of XIII  527 

Wausau  Box  &  Lumber  Co.  et  al.,  v.  C.  &  A^.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund IV     256;  335 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  459 

■  V. ,  1914    - 

Rates  on  wooden  boxes,  reasonableness  of  and  refund.... XI 1 1  698 

Wausau  Box  cfc  Lbr.'Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1909 

Concentration  rates  on  rough  lumber Ill  605 

V. ,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  337 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  457 

V. ,  1915 

Rates  on  saw  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund  XV  645 

Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.  v.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp IX  400 

V. ,  1913 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  417 

V. ,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  ground  wood  pulp XIII  690 

Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Concentration  rates  on  butter  and  eggs Ill       32;  338 

Webster  Mfg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.R.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  logs XIV  703 

V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of V  95 

V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of XIV  703 

Week  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  53 

Westboro  Lbi;.  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark XIII  378 


Cases  Reported  643 


Volume  and  Page 
Western  Elevator  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Refund  from  charge  exacted  for  switching  cars  of  coal  ...XII  184 

Western  Ind.  Constr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  steel  rails VIII  309 

Wheeler-Timlin  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  434 

White  Rock  Quarry  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Refund  on  shipments  of  granite  blocks XIII  669 

Whittet  V.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  aL,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber .' IV  195 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  cordwood IV  480 

Wing  &  Getts  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  <Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Concentration  rates  established VI  625 

Winkler  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  6c  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream,  reasonableness  of II  450 

V. ,  1909 

Rates  on  milk  and  cream Ill  425 

Wisconsin  &  M.  R.  Co.  et  al,  Bartles-Maguire  Oil  Co.  et  al.  v. 
1911 

Less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum  products VI  326 

et  al..  Green  Bay  Box  Sc  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs /....Ill  362 

,  Pereley  Lowe  Sc  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  piling: XI  108 

et  al.,  Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  cedar  posts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV      *     188 

et  al..  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Trajffic  Assn.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

, v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

-, v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 

Wisconsin  Sc  N.  R.  Co.,  Kaufmann  Sc  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  salt VI  497 

et  al.,  Keith  Sc  Hiles  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  57 

et  al.,  M ears-Slay  ton  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and  estabUshment  of 

joint  rates VIII  247 

et  al.  Price  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber Ill  467 

et  al..  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Trajfic  Assn.  v.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 

, v.,  1914 

Joint  rates  on  pulp  wood XIII  735 

- — , v.,  1914 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XV  66 


644  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Wisconsin  &  N.  R.  Co.  ei  ai,  Somo  River  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber. IV  485 

d  al.  Wis.  Fruit  Package  Co.  v.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  fruit  packages V  642 

Wisconsin  Box  Co.  ei  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909.. 

Rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and  refund... /r IV     256;  323 

V. ,  1910  ^ 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IV  405 

— — 'et  al.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1909 

\      Concentration  rates  on  rough  lumber Ill  605 

V. ,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV     271;  327 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  768 

Wisconsin  C.  R.  Co.,  Chippewa  Lbr.  8c  Boom  Co.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  607 

• ,  Cook  &  Brown  Lime  Co.  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  cement,  reasonableness  of  and  refund.. II  298 

• et  al.,  Crary  v.,  1909 

Minimum  carload  weights  on  canned  goods Ill  432 

,  Hodges  v.,  1906 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber,  legality  of ...I  300 

-,  Island  Paper  Co.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of I  234 

et  al.,  Kinney  et  al.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of I  124 

,  Loftus-Hubbard  Elevator  Co.  v.,  1906 

Minimum  weights  on  hay,  reasonableness  of I  91 

et  al.,  Manitowoc  Malting  Co.  v.,  1906 

Joint  rates  on  barley,  reasonableness  of I "  69 

,  Medford  Fruit  Package  Co.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  berry  boxes,  reasonableness  of I  44 

,  Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.,  1908 

Refund  on  shipment  of  paper II  300 

,  Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.,  1906 

Rates  on  wood  bolts,  legality  of  ante-dated  tariff I  108 

, ,  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  589 

,  Meyer  v.,  1911 

Operation  of  branch  line  and  railroad  rates VII  401 

— —  et  ai,  Nelson-Berry  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1907 

Joint  rates  on  slab  wood,  reasonableness  of II  95 

,  Plumb  &  Nelson  Co.  v.,  1906 

Joint  rates,  establishment  of I  19 

et  al..  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  Trajfic  Assn.  y.,  1913 

Rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of XI  365 


Cases  Reported  645 


Volume  and  Page 
Wisconsin  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.y  Tinkham  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  posts IV  329 

,  Trostel  Sc  Sons  v.,  1908 

Rates  on  tanbark,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  761 

, v.,  1908 


Refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark Ill  181 

-  et  al.,  Valvoline  Oil  Co.,  v.,  1908 

Transit  privileges II  232 

-, p.,  1909 

Rehearing  on  order  granting  transit  privileges Ill  364 

— ,  Wisconsin  Coal  Co.  v.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coal Ill  339 

et  a/.,  Wis.  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  p.,  1911 


Group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

Wisconsin  Clay  Mfrs.  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Establishment  of  joint  rates  on  tile  and  on  brick  and  tile. XIII  756 

Wisconsin  Coal  Co.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipment  of  coal  denied Ill  339 

Wisconsin  Fruit  Package  Co.  u.  W.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  fruit  packages ....V  642 

Wisconsin  Lakes  Ice  &  Cartage  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912        -, 

Reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  ice IX  101 

V. ,  1912 

Refund  on  shipment  of  ice XI       62;  171 

Wisconsin  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Peshtigo  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  on  cedar  posts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  188 

Wisconsin  Pulp  Sc  Paper  Mfrs.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  at., 
1911 

Group  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of VI  436 

D.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood VIII  16 

Wisconsin  Retail  Lbr.  Dealers'  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1909 

Joint  rates Ill     471;  589 

Wisconsin  River  Paper  6c  Pulp  Co.  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1911 

Refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VIII  64 

Wisconsin  Sugar  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  6c  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906 

Rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp ,  reasonableness  of I  258 

V.  M.  St.  P.  6c  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1915 

Rates  on  sugar  beets,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XV  650 

Wolf  V.  C.  M.  6c  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIII  375 

Wright  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  6c  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark,... IV  17& 

V. ,  1910 

Refund  on  shipments  of  logs..' IV  770 

Yawkey-Bissel  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  6c  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Refund  on  shipment  of  lumber .VI  21 


646  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAI>  CASES. 

i.  Rates  and  Refunds. 

Yawkey-Bissel  Lhr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Refund  on  shipments  of  lumber VI  209 

j.  Station  Facilities. 

Abbotsford,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  facilities  and  train  service VI  619 

Abrams  Business  Men*s  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XIV  780 

Acheson  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  faciUties XII  564 

Ahnapee  &  W.  R.  Co.,  Perry,  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  223 

Albright  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Free  storage  period,  extension  of XIV  763 

American  Society  of  Equity  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  489 

Anderton  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  383 

et  al.  V. ,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  tr^'in  service ? XII  '506 

Andrew  et  al.  p.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities,  power  of  Commission  to  abate  nuisances.XI  I  567 

Antisdel  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  404 

Ashland,  City  of,  v.M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Station  facilities,  use  of  railroad  company's  property  as 

private  dock  for  public  convenience XV  816 

Bacon  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  366 

V.  S.  M.  St  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Station  facilities II  253 

Blackman  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities  and  railroad  crossings IX  50 

Blaine  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  403 

Blaser  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Station  facilities II  275 

Bottomley  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  telephone  service ; XV  446 

Bouk  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities ^. XV  8 

Bowker  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Station  facilities..... II  514 

Bradley  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Station  facilities IV  136 


Cases  Reported  647 


Volume  and  Page 
Brown  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Station  facilities V  198 

Buckman  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  extension  of  free  storage  period XV  405 

Burlington,  Brighton  &  Wheatland  Tel.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1910 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station.... IV  388 

Chicago,  &  Mil.  El.  R.  Co.,  City  of  Kenosha  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities,  interurban  railways XII  257 

• ,  Mahoney  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities :.., XI  578 

Chicago  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Acheson  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  564 

,  Blackman  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities  and  railroad  crossings IX  50 

,  Blaser  et  al.  v.,  1908 

Station  facilities '. II  275 

,  Buckman  y.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  extension  of  free  storage  period XV  405 

,  Burlington,  Brighton  <Sc  Wheatland  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station IV  388 

,  Clintonville,  City  of,  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  679 

,  Cross  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities ■. XIII  421 

,  Dahle  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  369 

,  Ford  v.,  1913 


Station  facilities XIII  418 

— ,  Frederick  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities XIII  646 

— ,  Gilbertson  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  495 

-  et  al..  High  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities XI  90 

— ,  Hoffman  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  519 

-,  Judd  &  Judd  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities XI  175 

— ,  Lohrville  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities VIII  699 

— ,  Lorenz  Sc  Lorenz  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Station  facilities IV  161 

-,  McMillan  v.,  1914 


Station  facilities,  union  station XIII  679 

—  et  al., et  al.  v.,  1914 

Station  facihties,  union  station XV  227 

—  et  al.,  Plymouth,  City  o/,  y.,  1911 

Station  facilities VII  770 


648 Cases  Reported 

"  Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

j.  Station  Facilities. 

Chicago  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Pukall  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XIII  427 

et  al.,  Teasdale  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  union  station XIII  679 

,  Tennie  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities ■ .XV  386 

,  Travelers'  Prot.  Assn.  of  America  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service i XI  333 

,  - —  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XII  439 

,  Wubker,  Jr.,  et  al.  y.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  326 

Chicago,  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  Andrew  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities,  power  of  Commission  to  abate  nuis- 
ances  XII  567 

,  Conklin  et  al.  v.,  1913  , 

Station  facilities XII  555 

,  Smith  v.,  1909 

Station  facilities Ill  356 

Chicago,  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Abrams Business  Men's  Assn.  v., 
1914 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XIV  780 

,  Antisdel  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  404 

Bacon  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  366 

,  Blaine  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities ; XV  403 

,  Bottomley  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  telephone  service XV  446 

,  Bouk  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  8 

,  Bradley  v.,  1909 

Station  facilities IV  136 

• ,  City  of  Columbus  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities  and  railroad  crossing IX  576 

,  Croty  et  al.  v.,  1912      ' 

Station  facilities IX  274 

,  Funk  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities VIII  582 

et  al.,  Frederick  v.,  1915 

Station  facilities XV  670 

,  Gosz  v.,  1908 

Station  facilities .' II  344 

,  Grossman  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  254 


V 


Cases  Reported  649 


Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Guildner  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities  and  train  service I  102 

et  al..  Hall  v.,  1910 

Station  facilities VI  23 

et  al., v.y  1913 


Station  facilities XII  111 

— ,  Halves  v.,  1911 
Station  facilities , VI  565 

—  et  al.  High  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities XI  90 

— ,  Homstad  et  al.  v.,  \^\0 

Statiorf  facilities VI  .  1 

— ,  Horicon  Advancement  Assn.  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities XIV  144 

— ,  Lienemann  v.,  1907 
Station  facilities II  88 

—  et  al.,  Loehr  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  34 

-,  McMillan  y.,  1912 
Station  facilities X  556 

—  et  at.,  McMillan  et  al.  v.,  1914 


Station  facilities,  union  station XV  227 

— ,  McNaight  et  al.  v.,  1914 
Station  facilities,  telephone  service XV  433 

—  et  al..  New  Richmond,  City  of,  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  union  station XIV  556 

—  et  al.,  Plymouth,  City  of,  v.,  1911 

Station  facilities VII  770 

— ,  Rogers  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities XIII  617 

-,  Rollis  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  486 

— ,  Sauk  City  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.,  1909 
Telephone  service Ill  346 

—  et  al.y  Storch  v.,  1911 

Station  facilities VI  663 

— ,  Strasburg  i;.,  1911 


Station  facilities  and  train  service VI  504 

— ,  Sun  Prairie,  Village  of,  v.,  1914 
Station  facilities XIV  332 

-  et  al.,  Teasdale  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  union  station XIII  679 

-  Von  Berg  et  al.  v.,  1914  • 
Station  facilities .XIV          553 

-  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  311 

-  Wilkins  &  Wilkins  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XV  18 


t 


650  Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

j.   Station  Facilities. 

Chicago,  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Wilson  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  696 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  Albright  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Free  storage  period,  extension  of XIV  763 

• ,  American  Society  of  Equity  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  489 

,  Anderson  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  383 

,  Christenson  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities IX  477 

,  Commercial  Club  of  Menomonie  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities XIV  123 

et  al.,  Frederick  v.,  1915 

Station  facilities XV  670 

,  Hope  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  47 

,  Lauder  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  telephone  service XV  33 

-,  Menomonie  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities  and  train  service X  478 

,  Monk  v.,  1915 

Station  facilities XV  635 

,  Pischel  v.,  1910 

Station  facilities IV  783 

,  Pritchard  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities , XIII  625 

,  Sergeant  p.,  1911  , 

Station  facilities •. VIII  285 

Christenson  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities IX  477 

Clintonuille,  City  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  679 

Columbus,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities  and  railroad  crossing IX  576 

Commercial  Club  of  Menomonie  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 
1914 
Station  faciUties XIV  123 

Conklin  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  555 

tross  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities XIII         421 

Croty  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities IX  274 

Curtiss,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  facilities  and  train  service VI  -655 


a 


Cases  Reported 651 

Volume  and  Page 
Dahle  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  369 

Dennis  v.  K.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Station  facilities II  575 

Eastern  R.  Co.  of  M.  et  al..  Peoples'  Tel  Co.  v.,  1908 

Station  facilities,  telephone  service II  822 

Farmers'  Land  <Sc  Cattle  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co,, 
1913 

Station  facilities XI  318 

Ford  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities XIII         418 

Frederick  v.  C.  <Sc  N,  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities XIII  646 

V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1915 

Station  faciUties XV  670 

Funk  V.  C.  M.  Sz  SL  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities VIII  582 

Gilbertson  et  al  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  495 

Gosz  V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Station  facilities II  344 

Great  Northern  R.  Co.  et  al.  Peoples'  Tel  Co.  v.,  1908 

Station  facilities,  telephone  service II  822 

,  Thorson  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XII  363 

Green  B.  &  W.  R.  Co.,  Hemmis  et  al  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  626 

,  Ilijf  v.,  1907 

Station  facilities,  stock  scales II  102 

Grossman  v.  C.  M.  &  Si  P.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Station  facihties I  254 

Gruber  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Station  facihties I  53 

Guildner  v.  C.  M.  &  Si  P.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Station  facilities  and  train  service I  102 

Hall  V.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1910 

Station  facilities VI  23 

V. ,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  111 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Station  facilities VI  23 

Harms  et  al  v.  M.  Si  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  552 

Hawes  v.  C.  M.  &  SI  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  faciUties VI  565 

Heaverin  u.  M.  Si  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  facilities VI  526 

Hemmis  et  al  v.  G.  B.  <k  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facihties X  626 


652  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

j.   Station  Facilities. 

High  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  ai,  1912 

Station  facilities XI  90 

Hoffman  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  519 

Homstad  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Station  facilities VI  1 

Hope  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  47 

Horicon  Advancement  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

pi  Station  facilities XIV  144 

Uiff  V.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Station  facilities,  stock  scales II  102 

Jenks  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  465 

Judd  &  Judd  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities XI  175 

Kenosha,  City  of,  v.  Chi.  &  Milw.  EL  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities,  interurban  railways XII  257 

Keup  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XV  459 

Kewaunee,  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  Dennis  v.,  1908 

Station  facilities II  575 

Krueger  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Station  facilities  and  passenger  rates I  285 

Larson  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  430 

Lauder  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  telephone  service XV  33 

Laursen  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service ,...XI  627 

Lienemann  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Station  facilities II  88 

Loehr  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  34 

Lohrville,  Village  of,  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities VIII  699 

Lorenz  Sc  Lorenz  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Station  facilities ! IV  161 

Mahoney  v.  C.  Sc  M.  El.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities .....XI  578 

Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  Streveler  v.,  1907 

Station  facilities  and  train  service I  831 

Maurer  v.  M.  Si.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  facilities ::: VIII  301 

McKee  et,  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Station  facilities IX  342 


Cases  Reported  653 


Volume  and  Page 
McMillan  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  union  station XIII  679 

et  al.  V.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  union  station XV  227 

u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 


Station  facilities X  556 

McNaight  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities,  telephone  service XV  433 

Menomonie  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities  and  train  service X  478 

Milan  Store  Co.  v.  M.  Si.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  399 

Milwaukee  L.  H.  Sc  Tr.  Co.  et  al.,  Waukesha  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XIII  89 

Minneapolis  St.  P.  Sz  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Village  of  Abbotsford 
v.,  1911 

Station  facilities  and  train  service.... VI  619 

,  Andcrton  et  al.  v.,  1913  ^ 

Station  facilities,  and  train  service XII  506 

,  Ashland,  City  o/,  i;.,  1915 

Station  facilities,  use  of  railway  company's  private  dock 

for  public  convenience XV  816 

,  Bowker  v.,  1908 

Station  facilities II  514 

,  Brown  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Station  facilities V  198 

,  Curtiss,  Village  of ,  v.,  1911 

Station  facilities  and  train  service VI  655 

,  Farmers*  Land  Sz  Cattle  Co.  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XI  318 

,  G ruber  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  53 

,  Hall  v.,  1910 

Station  facilities VI  23 

et  al., v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  111 

,  Harms  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities XII  552 

,  Heaverin  v.,  1911 

Station  facilities VI  526 

,  Jenks  et  al.  v.,  191A 

Station  facilities XV  465 

,  Keup  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XV  459 

,  Larson  v.,  1912 

Station  facilities X  430 

,  LauTsen  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XI  627 


656 Cases  Reported  

Volume  9nd  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

j.  Station  Facilities. 

Travelers'  Prot.  Assn.  of  America  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XII  439 

Van  Epps  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XII  54 

Von  Berg  et  aL  v.  C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities '. XIV  553 

V. ,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  311 

Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  aL,  1913 

Station  facilities...  • XIII  89 

Whiteis  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities '. XIV  340 

Wilkins  &  Wilkins  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XV  18 

Wilson  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

)i*  Station  facilfties XII  696 

Winchester  et  al.  v..  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  facilities ;.... VIII  305 

Wisconsin  C.  R.  Co.,  Krueger  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities  and  passenger  rates I  285 

et  al.,  Loehr  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  34 

,  Pullen  u.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  27;  60 

Wubker  Jr.,  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  326 

Yates  et  al.  V.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  faculties ; VIII  305 

Ziesenis  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Station  facilities ...XV  585 

k.   Switch  Connections. 

Allen  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Demurrage  charges  and  terminal  facilities VI  14 

Brink  v.  C.  B.  <Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Spur  track II  79 

Chicago  <k  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Clear  Ice  Co.  v.,  1910 

Spur  track IV  426 

,  Eden  Independent  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.,  1909 

Spur  track IV  233 

, v..  Union  Lime  Co.  et  al.,  Interveners,  1910 

Spur  track: IV  788 

, v.,  1910 

Spur  track  extension V  110 

, v.,  1910 

Spur  track V  727 


Cases  Reported 657 

Volume  and  Page 
Chicago  cfc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Eden  Independent  LimeSc  Stone  Co., 
v.,  1911 

Spur  track VII  140 

,  Jacobson  y.,  1910 

S\ntch  track V  295 

,  Jefferson  Ice  Co.  v.,  1908 

Spur  track II  431 

,  Knutsen  v.,  1914 

Spur  track XIII  615 

,  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Spur  track XIII  409 

,  Plowright  Sc  Menzies  p.,  1908 

Switching  service II  553 

-,  Stresen-Reuter  v.,  1912 


Nuisance  due  to  switching IX  394 

et  al.,  Teasdale  v.,  1912 

Track  connections  and  switching  charges IX  66 

,  Thomas  v.,  1907 

Sidetrack I  716 

,  Weeks  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Spur  track XIV  114 

et  al..  West  Salem  Canning  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Track  connections XV  254 

Chicago,  B.  <Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  Brink  v.,  1907 

Spur  track II  79 

Chicago,  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Allen  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Demurrage  charges  and  terminal  facilities VI  14 

,  Clark  v.,  1907 

Team  track I        590;  733 

,  Farmers'  Store  Co.  v.,  1908 

Spur  track Ill  42 

et  al.,  Gratiot  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Track  connection XV  421 

,  Homstad  v.,  1907 

Sidetrack ; II  66 

,  Middleton  Sand  <Sc  Concrete  Co.,  v.,  1914 

Spur  track XV  306 

,  Oconto  Brewing  Co.  v.,  1911 

Spur  track VIII  67 

,  P/ie/ps  i;.,  1911 

Spur  track VI  556 

,  Savage  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Sidetrack X  442 

— — ,  Sinaiko  Bros,  v.,  1910 

Switching  charge IV  432 

et  al.,  Teasdale  p.,  1912 

Track  connections  and  switching  charges IX  66 

,  Thorne  v.,  1912 

Spur  track IX  156 


656 Cases  Reported  

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

j.  Station  Facilities. 

Travelers'  Proi.  Assn.  of  America  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XII  439 

Van  Epps  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XII  54 

Von  Berg  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities '. XIV  553 

V. ,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  311 

Waukesha  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Station  facilities....*. XIII  89 

Whiteis  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities ■. XIV  340 

Wilkins  &  Wilkins  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities  and  train  service XV  18 

Wilson  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

)pv  Station  facilfties XII  696 

Winchester  et  al.  v..  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  facilities VIII  305 

Wisconsin  C.  R.  Co.,  Krueger  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities  and  passenger  rates I  285 

et  al.,  Loehr  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  34 

,  Pullen  v.,  1906 

Station  facilities I  27;  60 

Wubker  Jr.,  et  al.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Station  facilities XV  326 

Yates  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Station  faculties : VIII  305 

Ziesenis  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Station  facilities ...XV  585 

k.   Switch  Connections. 

Allen  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Demurrage  charges  and  terminal  facilities VI  14 

Brink  v.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Spur  track II  79 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Clear  Ice  Co.  v.,  1910 

Spur  track IV  426 

,  Eden  Independent  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v.,  1909 

Spur  track IV  233 

, u..  Union  Lime  Co.  et  al..  Interveners,  1910 

Spur  track: IV  788 

, v.,  1910 

Spur  track  extension V  110 

, v.,  1910 

Spur  track V  727 


Cases  Reported 657 

Volume  and  Page 
Chicago  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Eden  Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co., 
v.,  1911 

Spur  track VII  140 

,  Jacobson  i;.,  1910 

S\^1tch  track V  295 

,  Jefferson  Ice  Co.  v.,  1908 

Spur  track II  431 

,  Knutsen  v.^  1914 

Spur  track XIII  615 

,  Madison  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Spur  track XIII  409 

,  Plowright  &  Menzies  v.,  1908 

Switching  service II  553 

-,  Stresen-Reuter  v.,  1912 


Nuisance  due  to  switching IX  394 

et  at.,  Teasdale  i;.,  1912 

Track  connections  and  switching  charges IX  66 

,  Thomas  v.,  1907 

Sidetrack I  716 

,  Weeks  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Spur  track XIV  114 

et  al..  West  Salem  Canning  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Track  connections XV  254 

Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  Brink  v.,  1907 

Spur  track II  79 

Chicago,  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Allen  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Demurrage  charges  and  terminal  facilities VI  14 

,  Clark  v.,  1907 

Team  track I        590;  733 

,  Farmers'  Store  Co.  v.,  1908 

Spur  track Ill  42 

et  al.,  Gratiot  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Track  connection XV  421 

,  Homsiad  v.,  1907 

Sidetrack : II  66 

,  Middleton  Sand  &  Concrete  Co.,  v.,  1914 

Spur  track XV  306 

,  Oconto  Brewing  Co.  v.,  1911 

Spur  track VIII  67 

,  Phelps  p.,  1911 

Spur  track VI  556 

,  Savage  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Sidetrack X  442 

— — ,  Sinaiko  Bros,  v.,  1910 

Switching  charge IV  432 

et  al.,  Teasdale  v.,  1912 

Track  connections  and  switching  charges IX  66 

,  Thorne  v.,  1912 

Spur  track IX  156 


658 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

k.  Switch  Connections. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  et  al.  West  Salem  Canning  Co.  et  al. 
v.,  1914 

Track  connections XV  254 

,  Vaudreil  Realty  Co.  v.y  1911 

Spur  track VI  661 

Clark  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Switching  service I        590;  733 

Clear  Ice  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Spur  track IV  426 

Corey  v.  M.  St.  P.  <Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Train  service  and  sidetrack I  191 

Doyle  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Industrial  track XIII  620 

Duluth-Superior  Milling  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Switching  service,  whether  interstate  or  intrastate VI  70 

Dwight Equity  Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  191 1 

Spur  track VI  501 

Eden  Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  <k  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Spur  track IV  233 

V. ,.  Union  Lime  Co.  et  al..  Interveners,  1910 

Spur  track IV  788 

V. ,  1910 

Spur  track V  110 

V. ,  1910 

Spur  track V  727 

V. ,  1911 

Spur  track VII  140 

Farmers'  Store  Co.  v.  C.  St.' P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Spur  track Ill  42 

Gratiot  et  al.  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Track  connection XV  421 

Hickerson  Roller  Mill  Co.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Spur  track '. IV  395 

Homstad  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907  ' 

Switch  connections,  establishment  of,  sidetrack II  66 

Hurst  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Spur  track Ill  283 

Illinois  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Gratiot  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Track  connection XV  421 

Jacobson  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Switch  connections;  switch  track V  295 

Jefferson  Ice  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Spur  track II  431 

Knutsen  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Spur  track XIII  615 

Madison  G.  Sc  El.  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Spur  track ,..XIH  409 


Cases  Reported  659 


Volume  and  Page 
Middleton  Sand  &  Concrete  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Spur  track XV  306 

Moe  <Sc  Millerman  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Sidetrack /. IV  117 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Corey  v.,  1906 

Train  service  and  sidetrack I  191 

,  Doyle  v.,  1914 

Industrial  track XIII  620 

,  Dwight  Equity  Produce  Co.  v.,  1911 


Spur  track VI  501 

— ,  Moe  &  Millerman  v.,  1909 
Sidetrack IV  117 

-  Osceola  Mill  &  Elev.  Co.  v.,  1906 

Refusal  to  make  connection  with  sidetrack I  166 

-  v.,  1907 

Sidetrack I  608 

-  v.,  1914 

Spur  track XV  416 

-,  Theresa  Mill  <Sc  Supply  Co.  v.,  1912 


Spur  track XI  73 

Nast  Bros.  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  et  al..  Interveners  in  Eden 
Independent  Lime  Sc  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1910 

Spur  track IV  788 

• , V. ,  1910 

Spur  track V       110;  727 

Northern  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.'N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Spur  track II  37 

Northern  P.  R.  Co.,  Duluth  Superior  Milling  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Switching  service,  whether  interstate  or  intrastate VI  70 

,  Hickerson  Roller  Mill  Co.  i;.,  1910 

Spur  track IV  395 

,  Hurst  v.,  1909 

Spur  track Ill  283 

,  Northern  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co.  v.,  1907 


Spur  track , II  37 

Oconto  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <k  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Spur  track VIII  67 

Osceola  Mill  &  Elevator  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1906 

Refusal  to  make  connection  with  sidetrack I  166 

V. ,  1907 

Sidetrack I  608 

V. ,  1914 


Sidetrack XV  416 

Phelps  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Spur  track VI  556 

Plowright  <Sc  Menzies  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Switching  service II  553 


660 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

k.  Switch  Connections. 

Savage  et  al.  u.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Sidetrack X  442 

Stresen-Reuter  et  at.  v.  C.  <ScN.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Nuisance  due  to  switching IX  394 

Superior  Terminal  Elev.  Co.  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Switching  service,  whether  interstate  or  intrastate VI  70 

Teasdale  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Track  connections  and  switching  charges IX  66 

Theresa  Mill  6c  Supply  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  db  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co., 
1912 

Spur  track XI  73 

Thomas  v.C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Sidetrack I  716 

Thome  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Spur  track IX  156 

Union  Lime  Co.  et  at..  Interveners  in  Eden  Independent  Lime 
&  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Spur  track IV         ^    788 

, V. ,  1910 

Spur  track >. V       110;  727 

Vaudreuil  Realty  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Spur  track VI  661 

Weeks  Lbr.  Co.  u.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Spur  track .' XIV  114 

West  Salem  Canning  Co.  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  at., 
1914 

Track  connections XV  254 

1.  Telegraph  Service. 

In  re  Invest,  of  Telegraph  Service,  1908 

Telegraph  service II  263 

Telegraph  Service,  In  re  Invest.,  1908 

Telegraph  service II  263 

m.  Tell  Tales. 

In  re  Rules  for  Tell  Tales,  1908 

Tell  tales,  rules  relating  to  erection  of II  757 

Tell  Tales,  In  re  Rules  for,  1908 

Tell  tales,  rules  relating  to  erection  of II  757 

n.  Train  Service. 

Abbotsford,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Train  service  and  station  facilities VI  619 

Abrams  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service  and  station  faciHties XIV  780 


Cases  Reported 661 

Volume  and  Page 
Adams  et  al.  u.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  506 

A.  H.  Stange  Co.  et  al.,  Bolger  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Operation  of  railroad  line,  continuation  of XII  223 

Anderton  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XII  506 

et  al.  V. ,  1914 

Train  service XIV  247 

Barber  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1909 

Train  service IV  238 

Barker  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Train  service IV  751 

Bartlett  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  d:  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Train  service IX  389 

Birkett  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service.. II  61 

Bissel  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XV  435 

Blaine  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Sunday  train  service XV  652 

Boardman  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  462 

Bolger  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  S:  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Operation  of  railroad  line,  continuation  of XII  223 

Bowers  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Railroad  car  service XI  634 

Brodhead-New  Glarus  Branch  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  In  re 
Train  Service,  1912 

Train  service IX  389 

Burkholder  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Train  service II  765 

Burrill  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  schedules IX  319 

Bushnell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service 1  532 

Calhoun,  Milw.  Milk  and  C.  Shippers  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1915 

Train  service XV  638 

Callen  Jr.  et  al  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XIII  732 

et  al.  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  581 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Birkett  v.,  1907 

Train  service II  61 

,  Bissell  v.,  1914 

Train  service XV  435 

,  Donald  v.,  1911 

Train  service VIII  320 


662 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

n.  Train  Service. 

Chicago  Sc  N.   W.  R.   Co.,  Fond  du  Lac  Business  Men's 
Assn.  v.t  1915 

Sleeping  car  service XV  606 

,  For  dice  et  al.  v.,  1909- 

Train  service , Ill  602 

,  Gilbertson  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Train  service XI  604 

,  Grube  v.,  1913 

Train  service ...XII  74 

,  Hariu  v.,  1914 

Train  service : XV  502 

et  al.,  John  Hoffman  Sc  Sons  v.,  1912 

Train  service IX  530 

y  Jefferson  Promoter's  Club  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Train  service XII  74 

, v.,  1913 

Train  service XIII  322 

,  L.  S.  Div.,  In  re  Invest.^  1912 

Train  service X  590 

et  al.,  Lentz  v.,  1911 

Train  service VI  581 

,  McFarland  v.,  1906 

Train  service I  248 

,  Milw.  Milk  Sc  Cream  Shippers  of  Calhoun  p.,  1915 

Train  service XV  638 

et  al.,  Nolan  et  al.  v.,  1915 

Train  service XV  588 

Passenger  Service,  Janesville-Fond  duLac,  In  re,  1913 

Train  service XII  74 

et  al.,  Rogers  v.,  1912 

Train  service IX  45 

,  Schmitt  et  al.  v.,  1915 

Train  service XV  758 

,  Travelers*  Prot.  Assn.  of  America  v.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XI  333 

, v.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XII  439 

,  Webster  v.,  1912 

Train  service _ X  500 

Chicago,  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  Adams  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  506 

,  Burkholder  v.,  1908 

Train  service II  765 

,  Gentenbein  i;.,  1914 

Train  service XIII  525 

,  Kemp  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Train  service Ill  305 


Cases  Reported 663 

Volume  and  Page 
Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  Maiden  Rock,  Village  of,  v.,  1909 

Train  service IV  311 

,  Schlosstein  v.,  1911 

Train  service VIII  242 

,  Tate  v.,  1908 

Train  service,  speed  of  trains II  348 

Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Abrams Business  Men's  Assn.  v., 
1914 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XIV  780 

et  al.  Barber  v.,  1909 

Train  service IV  238 

,  Barker  v.,  1910 

Train  service IV  751 

et  al.,  Bartlett  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Train  service IX  389 

,  Blaine  v.,  1915 

Sunday  train  service XV  652 

et  al.,  Bolger  et  aL  v.,  1913 

Operation  of  railroad  line,  continuation  of ...XII  223 

,  Bowers  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Car  service XI  634 

,  Bushnell  v.,  1907 

Train  service I  532 

,  Callen  Jr.  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Train  service ...XIII  732 

, v.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  581 

-,  Delbridge  v.,  1907 


Train  service II  32 

,  Dyer  v.,  1908 

Train  service II  621 

— ,  Guildner  v.,  1906 

Train  service  and  station  facilities I  102 

— ,  Hall  v.,  1906 

Train  service,  hauling  of  private  cars I  118 

,  Hume  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Train  service XIII  80 

et  al.,  John  Hoffman  &  Sons  Co.  v.,  1912 

Train  service IX  530 

et  al., v.,  1913 

Train  service XIII  322 

,  Jones  v.,  1907 

Train  service I  615 

et  al.,  Knapp  v.,  1910 

Train  service V  176 

,  Kuenzli  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Train  service,  milk  shipments XII  690 

,  Laun  v.,  1910 

Train  service VI  5 


664 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

n.  Train  Service. 

Chicago,  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  ei  al.,  Leniz  v.,  1911 

Train  service VI  581 

,  Morris  et  at.  v.y  1913 

Train  service XII  560 

,  Overmeyer  et  at.  v.,  1913 

Train  service : XI  569 

,  Sager  v.,  1907 

Train  service I  660 

,  Strasburg  v.,  1911 

Train  service  and  station  facilities VI  504 

,  Tz7usy.,  1911 

Train  service VI  534 

,  Train  Service,  Madison  and  Portage  and  Points  West  of 

Portage,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Train  service XII  560 

,  Werner  et  at.  v.,  1914 

Train  service... XIV  573 

,  Wilkins  &  Wilkins  v.,  1914 

Train  service  and  station  facilities : XV  18 

,  Wis.  St.  Bd.  of  Agriculture  v.,  1914 

Train  service .XV  110 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  at..  Barber  v.,  1909 

Train  service IV  238 

,  Godard  v.,  1909 

Train  service : Ill  578 

,  Menomonie,  City  of,  v.,  1912 

Train  service  and  station  facilities ,. X  478 

et  at.,  Rosen  u.\  1907 

Train  service I  512 

et  at.,  Senty  v.,  1914 

Train  service XV  155 

,  Sieberns  et  at.  v.,  1914 

Train  service '. XIV.  775 

,  Witding  v.,  1912.. 

Train  service IX  513 

Colfax  Produce  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Distribution  of  cars,  and  service XIV  86 

Coon  et  at.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  at.,  1907 

Train  service.. I  724 

V, ,  1907 

Train  service II  1 

• V. ,  1908 

Train  service II  355 

Copper  River  Land  Co.  et  at..  Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.,  1907 

Train  service I  739 


Cases  Reported  665 


Volume  and  Page 
Copper  River  Land  Co.  et  al..  Rib  River  Land  Co.  p.,  1910 

Operation  of  branch  railroad IV  455 

Coreij  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Train  service  and  switch  connections I  191 

Curtiss,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  cS:  S.  5.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Train  service  and  station  facilities VI  655 

Delbridge  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service II  32 

Dennis  v.  K.  G.B.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  115 

Donald  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Train  service VIII  320 

Dulufh  S.S.&A.R.  Co.,  Farmer  v.,  1906 

Train  service I  316 

,  Hughson  v.,  1913 

Train  service ; XIII  406 

, et  al.  v.,  1915 

Train  service XV  599 

Dyer  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Train  service II  621 

Ellman  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Refrigerator  car  service IX  240 

Farmer  v.  D.  S.  S.  Sc  A.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service I  316 

Feuling  v.  G.  B.  <Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XII  116 

Fond  du  Lac  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Sleeping  car  service XV  606 

Fordice  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Train  service Ill  602 

Frost  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service II  92 

Ganteribein  v.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  ser\4ce...... XIII  525 

Gilbertson  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XI  604 

Godard  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Train  service Ill  578 

Great  N.  R.  Co.,  Schmidt  v.,  1909 

Train  service IV  121 

,  Thorson  v.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XII  363 

Green  Bay  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  Feuling  v.,  1913 

Train  service XII  116 

et  al.,  John  Hoffman  Sc  Sons  Co.  v.,  1912 

Train  service '. IX  530 

, p.,  1913 

Train  service XIII  322 


666 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

n.  Train  Service. 

Green  Bay  Sc  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Nolan  et  al.  v.,  1915 

Train  service XV  588 

,  Seymour  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.,  1912 

Sunday  train  service VIII  524 

Grube  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XII  74 

Guildner  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  Si.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Train  service  and  station  facilities I  102 

Hall  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Train  service,  hauling  of  private  cars I  118 

Hariu  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XV  502 

Harris  et  al.  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service X  512 

Hart  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Diversion  of  railroad  line VII  463 

Hayden  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XIII  390 

ffein  Sc  Francis  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Train  service IX  389 

Hoffman  (John)  <fc  Sons  Co.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1912 

Train  service IX  530' 

V. ,  1913 

Train  service : XIII         322 

Howison  et  al.  u.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  775 

Hughson  v.  D.  S.  S.  Sz  A.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XIII  406 

V. ,  1915 

Train  service XV  599 

Hume  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XIII  80 

niinois  C.  R.  Co.,  Burrill  v.,  1912 

Train  schedules IX  319 

,  Dodgeville  Branch  of.  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Train  service X  572 

,  Ellman  v.,  1912 

Refrigerator  car  service IX  240 

,  Harris  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Train  service X  512 

et  al.,  Hein  Sc  Francis  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Train  service IX  389 

,  Knapp  v.,  1910 

Train  service V  176 


Cases  Reported 667 

Volume  and  Page 
Illinois  C.  R.  Co.,  Watrud  v.,  1914 

Train  service XV  449 

,  Wright  v.,  1908 

Train  service II  279 

In  re  Invest.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Passenger  Service,  Janesville- 
Fond  du  Lac,  1913 

Train  service XII  74 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Train  Service,  Madison  and  Portage 

and  Points  West  of  Portage,  1913 

Train  service XII  560 

Dodgeville  Branch  of  the  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service X  572 

L.  S.  Div.  of  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service X  590 

In  re  North  Wisconsin  Farmers'  Assn.,  1906 

Free  transportation  of  advertising  car I  175 

In  re  Train  Service  Brodhead-New  Glarus  Branch  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service IX  389 

Interlocking  Plants,  Rules  Governing  the  Construction,  Main- 
tenance and  Operation  of.  In  re,  1913 

Railroad  and  street  railways,  train  service XII  718 

Jefferson  Promoters"  Club  et  al.  v.  C.  <Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service : XII  74 

John  Hoffman  &  Sons  Co.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Train  Service IX  530 

V. ,  1913 

Train  service XIII  322 

Jones  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service I  615 

Kellum  V.  S.  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 

Kemp  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  Sz  Q.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Train  service Ill  350 

Keup  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XV  459 

Kewaunee  G.  B.  Sz  W.  R.  Co.,  Dennis  v.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  115 

Kissinger  v.  M.  St.  P.  <k  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service ^ ....* XIII  790 

Knapp  V.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Train  service -. V  176 

Knapp  Bros,  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <fc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  el  al.,  1912 

Train  service IX  389 

Kuenzli  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service — milk  shipments XII  690 

Laun,  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Train  service VI  5 


668 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

n.  Train  Service. 

LauTsen  ef  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XI  ^27 

Lentz  V.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1911 

Train  service VI  581 

Leonard  et  al.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1907 

Train  service I  724 

V. ,  1907 

Train  service II  1 

V. ,  1908 

Train  service II  355 

Liberty  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Train  service I  139 

Little  V.  S.  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 

Loyal  Business  Men* s  Assn.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service , I  720 

Maiden  Rock,  Village  of,  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Train  service IV  311 

Mattoon  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Paxton  &  Lighthody  Co.  v.,  1910 

Discrimination  in  car  service V  531 

Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  Sireveler  v.,  1907 

Train  service  and  station  facilities I  831 

, ,  v.,  1907 

Train  service II  .  78 

McFarland  v.  C.  Sz  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1906 

Train  service I  248 

Menomonie,  City  of,  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service  and  station  facilities  X  478 

Meyer  v.  Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Operation  of  branc'i  railroad... IV  178 

u. ,1911 

Operation  of  branch  Ime  and  railroad  rates VII  401 

Milw.  Milk  &  Cream  Shippers  of  Calhoun  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1915 

Train  service XV  638 

Mineral  Point  <Sc  N.  R.  Co.,  Roethe  v.,  1913 

Train  service XI  643 

Minneapolis  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Abbotsford,  Vill.  of,  v.,      ' 
1911 

Train  service  and  station  facilities VI  619 

Anderton  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XII  506 

, v.,  1914 

Train  service.... XIV      .    247 

,  Boardman  v.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  462 


Cases  Reported  '  669 


Volume  and  Page 
Minneapolis,  Si.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Colfax  Produce  Co. 
v.,  1914 

Distribution  of  cars,  and  service XIV  86 

,  Corey  v.,  1906 

Train  service  and  switch  connections I  191 

,  Curtiss,  Village  of,  v.,  1911 

Train  service  and  station  facilities VI  655 

,  Hart  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Diversion  of  railroad  line VII  463 

,  Hayden  v.,  1913 

Train  service XIII  390 

,  Kissinger  v.,  1914 

Train  service XIII  790 

,  Keup  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Train  service  and  station  facilities ...XV  459 

,  Laursen  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XI  627 

,  Parkhill  v.,  1912 

Train  service  and  railway  crossing  and  station  facilities.... XI  153 
et  al.,  Rogers  v.,  1912 

Train  service XI  45 

,  Sandquist  v.,  1912 

Train  service X  490 

,  Schoenhofen  v.,  1914 

Train  service... XIII  790 

et  al.y  Senty  v.,  1914 

Train  service XV  155 

,  Sparlin  i;.,  1910 

Train  service IV  467 

,  Unity,  Village  of ,  v.,  1913 

Train  service,  railroad  crossing XIII  430 

,  Van  Epps  v.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XII  54 

Morris  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XII  560 

Nelson  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Train  service  and  station  facilities VII  764 

V. ,  1912 

Train  service VIII  685 

Nolan  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1915 

Train  service XV  588 

Northern  P.  R.  Co.,  Nelson  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Train  service  and  station  facilities VII  764 

, v.,  1912 

Train  service ...VIII  685 

North  Wisconsin  Farmers'  Assn.,  In  re,  1906 

Free  transportation  of  advertising  car I  175 

Nye,  Lusk  &  Hudson  Co.  v.  S.  M.  Sc  P.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 


670 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

n.  Train  Service. 

Olson  et  al.  v.  S.  M.  Sc  P.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 

Overmeyer  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XI  569 

Parkhill  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service,  railroad  crossing  and  station  facilities ...XI  153 

Paxton  Sc  Lightbody  Co.  v.  Mattoon  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Discrimination  in  car  service V  531 

Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co.  et  al.,  Meyer  v.,  1909 

Operation  of  branch  railroad ..IV  178 

, D.,  1911 

Operation  of  branch  line  and  rates VII  401 

Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.  Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  al.,  1907 

Train  service I  739 

u. ,  1910 

Operation  of  branch  railroad .IV  455 

Roethe  v.  Mineral  Point  Sc  N.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service XI  643 

Rogers  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Train  service IX  45 

et  al.  u.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Operation  of  railroad  line,  continuation  of XII  223 

Rosen  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1907 

Train  service I         /        512 

Rules  Governing  the  Construction,  Maintenance  and  Operation 
of  Interlocking  Plants,  In  re,  1913 

Railroads  and  street  railways XII  718 

Sager  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service I  660 

Sandquist  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service X  490 

Schlosstein  v.  C.  B.  Sc  Q.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Train  service •. VIII  242 

Schmidt  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Train  service IV  121 

Schmitt  et  al.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1915 

Train  service XV  758 

Schoenhofen  v.  M.  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XIII  790 

Senty  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Train  service XV  155 

Seymour  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  G.  B.  Sc  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Sunday  train  service VIII  524 

Sieberns  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sc  0.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  775 


Cases  Reported  "671 


Volume  and  Page 
Sparlin  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Train  service IV  467 

Stange  Co.,  A.  H.,  et  al.,  Bolger  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Operation  of  railroad  line,  continuation  of XII  223 

Stanley,  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Kellum  v.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 

et  al..  Little  v.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 

,  Nye,  Lusk  &  Hudson  Co.  v.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 

et  al.,  Olson  et  al.  v.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 

Strasburg  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Train  service  and  station  facilities VI  504 

St  reveler  v.  Marathon  County  R.  Co.,  1907 

Train  service  and  station  facilities I  831 

V. ,  1907 

Train  service II  78 

Tate  V.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Train  service,  speed  of  trains II  348 

Thorson  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XII  363 

Titus  V.  C.  M.  cfc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911 

Train  service VI  534 

Travelers*  Prot.  Assn.  of  America  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XI  333 

V. ,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XII  439 

Unity,  Village  of,  v.  M.  St.  P.  6c  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service  and  railroad  crossing XIII  430 

Upham  Mfg.  Co.  et  al..  Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.,  1907 

Train  service I  739 

' , v.,  1910 

Operation  of  branch  railroad IV  455 

Van  Epps  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XII  54 

Watrud  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XV  449 

Webster  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service X  500 

Werner  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XIV  573 

Whalen  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1912 

Train  service IX  389 

Wilding  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Train  service IX  513 

Wilkins  &  Wilkins  v.  C.  M.  <Sc  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service  and  station  facilities XV  18 


672  Cases  Reported 


\  Volume  and  Page 

IX.     RAILROAD  CASES. 

n.  Train  Service. 

Wisconsin  C.  R.  Co.,  Frost  v.,  1907 

Train  service , II  92 

d  al.y  Kellum  v.,  1908 

Train  service « , Ill  262 

et  al.,  Leonard  et  al.  v.,  1907 

Train  service I  724 

, i;.,  1907 

Train  service II  1 

, v.,  1908 

Train  service II  355 

,  Liberty  v.,  1906 


Train  service I  139 

et  al..  Little  v.,  1908 

Train  service Ill  262 

,  Loyal  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.,  1907 

Train  service , I  720 

et  al.,  Meyer  v.,  1909 

Operation  of  branch  railroad IV  178 

, v.,  1911 

Operation  of  branch  line  and  railroad  rates '. VII  401 

, et  al.,  Olson  v.,  1908 

Train  service ...Ill  262 

et  al..  Rib  River  Land  Co.  v.,  1907 

Train  service. I  739 

, v.,  1910 

Operation  of  branch  railroad IV  455 

Wis.  St.  Bd.  of  Agriculture  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Train  service XV  110 

Wright  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908 

Train  service ..II  279 

o.  Transfer  Companies. 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  Cohn  v.,  1912 

Discrimination  between  different  transfer  companies VIII  569 

Cohn  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912 

Discrimination  between  different  transfer  companies VIII  569 

p.  Warehouses. 

American  Society  of  Equity  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sz  0.  R.  Co.,  1913 

Warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way XII  557 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  <k  0.  R.  Co.,  American  Society  of  Equity  v., 
1913 

Warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way XII  557 

,  Roberts  Produce  Co.  v.,  1910 

Warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way V  207 

,  Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.,  1907 

Grain  elevator,  discriminatory  leasirig  of I  655 


Cases  Reported  673 


Volume  and  Page 
Eastern  R.  Co.  of  Minnesota  et  at.,  Superior  Board  of  Trade  v., 
1907 

Grain  elevators,  discriminatory  leasing  of I  619 

Great  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.,  1907 

Grain  elevators,  discriminatory  leasing  of I  619 

Minneapolis,  St.  P.  Sc  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  Rust  v.,  1914 

Warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way XIV  251 

Northern  Pacific  R.  Co.,  Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.,  1907 

Grain  elevator,  construction  of I  658 

Roberts  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910 

Warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way V  207 

Rust  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way XIV  251 

Superior  Board  of  Trade  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  Sz  0.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Grain  elevator,  discriminatory  leasing  of I  655 

,  V.  G.  N.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1907 

Grain  elevators,  discriminatory  leasing  of I  619 

V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907 

Grain  elevator,  construction  of I  658 

STREET  RAILWAY  CASES,  see  Electric  Railway  Cases. 

X.  TELEPHONE  CASES. 

a.  Directories.  d.  Physical  Connection. 

b.  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  e.  Poles — Removal  of, 

and  Necessity.  f.  Rates  and  Service. 

c.  Extensions. 

a.  Directories. 

Fond  du  Lac  Business  Men*s  Assn.  et  al.  v.  Wisconsin  Tel.  Co., 
1909 

Advertisements  in  telephone  directories... IV  ^0 

Mauthe  Furniture  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909 

Advertisements  in  telephone  directories IV  340 

Northern  Casket  Co.  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909 

Advertisements  in  telephone  directories IV  340 

Wisconsin  Telephone  Co.,  Fond  du  Lac  Business  Men's  Assn. 
et  al  v.,  1909 

Advertisements  in  telephone  directories IV  340 

b.  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 

Addison,  Town  of,  Tel.  line  in.  In  re  Constr.  of,  1914 

For  construction  of  telephone  line.. XIV  766 

Gehl  et  at..  In  re  AppL,  1914 

For  construction  of  telephone  line .-. XIV  766 

In  re  Appl.  Gehl  et  al,  1914 

For  construction  of  telephone  line XIV  766 

Sevastopol  Farmers  Tel.  Co.,  1914: 

For  construction  of  telephone  line XIV  524 

22 


674 Cases  Reported 

Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

b.  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 

In  re  Constr.  of  a  Tel.  Line  in  Town  of  Addison,  Wash.  Co., 
1914 

For  construction  of  telephone  line XIV  766 

Sevastopol  Farmers  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

For  construction  of  telephone  line .' ...XIV  524 

c.  Extensions. 

Barron  County  Tel.  Co.,  Brooks  et  al.  v.,  1914: 

Refusal  to  extend  service XV  499 

Brooks  et  at.  v.  Barron  County  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Refusal  to  extend  service XV  499 

Chippewa  County  Tel.  Co.  in  Anson,  Town  of.  In  re  Proposed 
Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  lines XIV  510 

Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  In  re,  1913 

Extension  of  line XIII  166 

Cornell  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Proposed  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  814 

Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.  State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.,  et  al.,  1914 

Physical  connection,  extension  of  lines XIII     '    597 

Earl  Tel.  Co.  v.  Trego  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  457 

East  Valley  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Proposed  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line , XIV  802 

Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Proposed  Extension,  1913 

Extension  of  line XII  744 

Fond  du  Lac  Rural  Tel.  Co.,  In  re,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIII  676 

Grange  Hall  Farmers  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Proposed  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line > XV  11 

In  re  Extension  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XV  57 

• of  St.  Croix  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XV  241 

In  re  Invest.  Alleged  Refusal  of  Oconto  Rural  Tel.  Co.  to 
Extend  Service,  1914 

Refusal  to  extend  service XV  277 

Alleged  Violation  of  Law  by  Lisbon  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

,    Extension  of  line XIV  131 

In  re  Proposed  Extension  Chippewa  County  Tel.  Co.  in  Town 
of  Anson,  1914       , 

Extension  of  lines XIV  510 

Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Extension  of  line XIII  166 

— —  Cornell  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  814 


( 


Cases  Reported  675 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Proposed  Extension  East  Valley  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  802 

Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Extension  of  line XII  744 

Fond  du  Lac  Rural  Tel.  Co.,  1914 


Extension  of  line XIII  676 

-  Grange  Hall  Farmers  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XV  11 

-  Mattoon  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  329 

-  Mayville  Rural  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  402 

-  Oak  Ridge  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XV  166 

—-Owen  Tel.  Co.,  1914 
Extension  of  line XIII  630 

-  Random  Lake  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  757 

-  St.  Croix  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XV  241 

-  West  Kewaunee  &  W.  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  lines .^ XIV  219 

-  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  i914 


Extension  of  lines .....XIV  396;441;510 

In  re  Refusal  Oconto  Rural  Tel.  Co.  to  Extend  Service,  1914 

Refusal  to  extend  service XV  277 

Johnson  et  al.  v.  Lodi  Tel.  Exch.,  1913 

Rates  and  service  and  extension  of  lines XI  713 

Lisbon  Tel.  Co.,  Alleged  Violation  of  Law  by.  In  re  Invest., 
1914 
Extension  of  line XIV  131 

Lodi  Tel.  Exch.,  Johnson  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Rates  and  service  and  extension  of  lines XI  713 

Mattoon  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Proposed  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  329 

Mayville  Rural  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line .* XIV  402 

Oak  Ridge  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Proposed  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line XV  166 

Oconto  Rural  Tel.  Co.,  Refusal  to  Extend  Service,  In  re,  1914 

Refusal  to  extend  service ....XV  277 

Owen  Tel.  Co.,  In  re,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIII  630 

Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line XV  57 

Random  Lake  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Proposed  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  757 


676  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

c.  Extensions. 

St.  Croix  Farmers  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  Tri-State  Tel.  Sc  Teleg.  Co. 
v.,  1913 

Extension  of  line XIII  437 

St.  Croix  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  line.. XV  241 

State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.  et  al..  Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Extension  of  lines  and  physical  connection XIII     ,    597 

Trego  Tel.  Co.,  Earl  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Extension  of  line XIV  "       457 

Tri-State  Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.  v.  St.  Croix  Farmers'  Mutual  Tel. 
Co.,  1913 

Extension  of  line .....XIII  437 

Western  Crawford  Co.  Farmers'  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl., 
1914 

Checking  station,  establishment  of .....XIV  568 

West  Kewaunee  &  W.  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Proposed  Extension, 
1914 

Extension  of  lines XIV  219 

Wis.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Extension  of  lines  and  physical  connection XIII  597 

,  In  re  Proposed  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  lines XIV    396;  441;  510 

d.  Physical  Connection. 

Arena  &  Ridgeway  Tel.  Co.  u.  Mazomanie  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Physical  connection XV  390 

Badger  Tel.  Co.,  Hawkins  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  655 

Belmont  &  Pleasant  View  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  White  Oak  Tel. 
Co.,  1914 
Physical    connection    and    establishment    of    uniform 

service,  rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

et  al.  V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  1914 

Physical    connection    and    establishment    of    uniform 

service,  rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

Bergen  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.  for  Physical  Connection  between, 
and  the  Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Physical  connection XIII  249 

Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.  Crawford  Co.  F.  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

Clinton  6c  Bergen  Tel.  Cos.,  In  re  Physical  Conn,  between,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  toll  rates X  598 

Clinton  Tel  Co.,  In  re  Appl.  for  Physical  Conn,  between,  and 
the  Bergen  Tel  Co.,  1913 
Physical  connection XIII  249 


Cases  Reported  .   677 


Volume  and  Page 
Crawford  Co.  Farmers*  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  Boscobel  Tel.  Co. 
v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

Curtiss  and  Withee  Tel.  Co.  v.  Owen  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Physical  connection ...XIII  538 

D. ,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  419^. 

Diamond  Grove  Tel.  Co.  u.  Mineral  Point  Tel.  Co.y  1914 

Physical  connection XV  185 

Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.  State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Physical  connection,  extension  of  lines XIII  597 

Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Physical  connection XII  68 

Farmers  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  of  Muscoda  et  al.,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v., 
1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

Farmers'  Union  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Mt.  Vernon  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Physical  connection XV  286 

Fennimore  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

Hawkins  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  655 

Hickory  Grove  Farmers*  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  at.,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co. 
v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

In  re  Appl.  La  Fayette  County  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Physical    connection    and    estabUshment    of    uniform 

service,  rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

Limy-Brook  Tel  Assn.,  1912 

Physical  connection IX  189 

of  Monroe  {A.  E.)  et  al.  for  Physical  Connection  between 

the  Clinton  Tel.  Co.  and  the  Bergen  Tel.  Co.,  1913 
Physical  connection XIII  249 

In  re  Mineral  Point  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  rates IX  285 

In  re  Physical  Conn,  between  Clinton  Sc  Bergen  Tel.  Cos,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  toll  rates X  598 

between  the  Clinton  Tel.  Co.  and  the  Bergen  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Physical  connection XIII  249 

Johnson  et  al.  v.  Readfield  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  102 

Kelty  Line  et  al,  Boscobel  Tel  Co.  v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  i)ates XI  32 

La  Crosse  Tel  Co.,  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Physical  connection *....XII  68 

et  al.  Winter  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XV  36 


678  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

d.     Physical  Connection. 

La  Fayette  County  Tel.  Co.  et  at.,  Belmont  &  Pleasant   View 
Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection,  and  establishment  of  uniform  serv- 
ice rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

,  In  re  Appl.,  1914 

Physical  connection,  and  establishment  of  uniform  serv- 
ice rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

Lindsey  Farmers  Tel.  Co.  et  at..  State  Aid  Highway  Comm.  v., 
1914 

Physical  connection XV  244 

Linzy-Brook  Tel.  Assn.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Physical  connection IX  189 

Mauston  Elec.  Service  Co.y  New  Lisbon  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Physical  connection XII  213 

Mazomanie  Tel.  Co.y  Arena  Sc  Ridgeway  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XV  390 

McGowan  v.  Rock  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  529 

Mineral  Point  Tel.  Co.,  Diamond  Grove  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XV  185 

,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  rates -^. IX  285 

Monroe,  In  re  Appl.  for  Physical  Conn,  between  the  Clinton 
Tel.  Co.  and  the  Bergen  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Physical  connection XIII  249 

ML  Vernon  Tel.  Co.,  Farmers'  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection , XV  286 

New  Lisbon  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mauston  Elec.  Service  Co.,  1913 

Physical  connection XII  ^         213 

Owen  Tel.  Co.,  Curtiss  and  Withee  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIII  538 

, v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  419 

Peoples  Tel.  Co.  (The)  et  al.,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

• 

Pleasant  Valley  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

Readfield  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Johnson  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  102 

Riverside  Park  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

Rock  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  McGowan  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  529 

Rough  and  Ready  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 


Cases  Reported  679 


Volume  and  Page 
State  Aid  Highway  Comm.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co  et  al.y  1914 

Physical  connection XV  244 

State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.  et  at..  Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection;  extension  of  lines XIII  597 

Tuffley  Line  et  al.,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

Werley  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  Boscobel  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Physical  connection  and  reasonableness  of  rates XI  32 

Westford  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Physical  connection.. XIV  655 

White  Oak  Tel.  Co.,  Belmont  &  Pleasant  View  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v., 
1914 
Physical  connection  and  establishment  of  uniform  serv- 
ice rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

Winter  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1913 

Physical  connection XI  748 

u. ,  1914 

Physical  connection. .' XV  36 

Wisconsin  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Belmont  &  Pleasant  View  Tel.  Co. 
et  al.  v.,  1914 
Physical  connection  and  establishment  of  uniform  serv- 
ice rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

et  al..  Eagle  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection;  extension  of  lines XIII  597 

et  al.,  McGowan  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XIV  529 

et  al..  State  Aid  Highway  Comm.  v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XV  244 

)  et  al..  Winter  v.,  1913 

Physical  connection XI  748 

, v.,  1914 

Physical  connection XV  36 

e.  Poles — Removal  of. 

Burns  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Removal  of  telephone  and  electric  poles VI  195 

Green  Bay,  City  of.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1908 

Ordinance  requiring  removal  of  telephone  poles Ill  147 

La  Crosse,  City  of.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  y.,  1911 

Removal  of  poles VII  435 

La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co.  et  al.,  Burns  v.,  1911 

Removal  of  telephone  and  electric  poles VI  195 

Wisconsin  Tel.  Co.  v.  City  of.  Green  Bay,  1908 

Ordinance  requiring  removal  of  telephone  poles Ill  147 

V.  City  of  La  Crosse,  1911 

Removal  of  poles VII  435 


680    ■  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

f.  Rates  and  Service. 

Arena  Sz  Ridgeway  Tel.  Co.  v.  Troy  Sc  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co. 
et  al.,  1914 

Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunk  line XIII  763 

V. ,1914 

Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunk  line XV  315 

Argyle  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appi,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  617 

Ashland  Home  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  489 

Badger  State  Tel.  Sz  Teleg.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

-     Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  407 

Badger  Teleg.  &  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in  toll  rates .V  300 

Badger  Tel.  Co.  of  Richland  Center,  In  re,  1908 

Telephone  service  and  rates Ill  98 

Ball,  J.  L.,  In  re  AppL,  1907 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  105 

Beef  River  Valley  TeL  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XII  126 

Berend  v.  Wis.  TeL  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  service,  regulation  requiring  deposit  as  pre- 
requisite for  service IV  150 

Big  Hollow  TeL  Co.  et  al..  Arena  &  Ridgeway  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunk  line XIII  763 

, v.,  1914 

Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunk  line XV      «      315 

Black  Earth  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Fesenfeld  &  Barber  et  al.  v.,   1909 

Telephone  service Ill  514 

. v.,  1909 

Telephone  service IV  111 

Bloomer  TeL  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IV  259 

Bottomley  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  Sz  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station XV  446 

Brodhead  TeL  Co.,  AppL  of  Sec.  1797m-91,  In  re.,  1907 

Special  contract  rates II  113 

,  In  re  AppL,  1907  ^ 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  113 

, ,1912     . 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  383 

Brooklyn  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL»  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  573 

Burlington,  Brighton  &  Wheatland  TeL  Co.  v.  C.  Sc  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1910 
Telephone  faciUties  in  railroad  station IV  388 


Cases  Reported  681 


Volume  and  Page 
Cascade  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  808 

Casco  &  Brussels  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  760 

Chicago  <&  A^.  W.  R.  Co.,  Burlington,  Brighton  <Sc  Wheatland 
Tel.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station IV  388 

Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  Bottomley  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Telephone  facihties  in  railroad  station XV  446 

,  McNaight  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Telephone  facihties  in  railroad  station XV  433 

,  Sauk  City  Business  Men^s  Assn.  v.,  1909 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station Ill  346 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  Lauder  v.,  1914 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station XV  33 

Clark  County  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1915 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  822 

Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  Tighe  et  al.  v.,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of Ill  117 

Coady  et  al.  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1915 

-Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  831 

Coloma  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  594 

Columbus  Advancement  Assn.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910 

Telephone  rates  and  service IV    •         414 

Connor  et  al.  v.  Marsh  e/  a/.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  extra  charges  for  long  distance  connec- 
tions  VI  589 

County  Line  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XII  169 

Cumberland  TeL  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  576 

Davis  et  aL  v.  Wis.  TeL  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  rates  and  service IV  370 

Deerfield  TeL  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XII  672 

Dodgeville  &  Wyoming  TeL  Co.  et  al..  Arena  Sc  R.  Tel.  Co.  v., 
1914 

Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunk  line XIII  763;  XV  315 

Door  County  TeL  Co.  et  al..  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  service XV  375 

Dorm  et  aL  v.  Walworth  TeL  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  412 

Eagle  Point,  Wis.  TeL  Co.  Toll  Station  at.  In  re,  1914 

Changing  of  toll  station  to  rural  station XV  454 

Eagle  TeL  Co.,  Rates  Sz  Regulations,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  397 

,  Trego  TeL  Co.  v.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of ..XIV  499 


682  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

f.  Rates  and  Service. 

4 

f 

East  Fond  du  Lac  Co.  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XI  114 

Eastern  Ry.  Co.  of  Minn,  et  al.  People's  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1908 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station II  822 

Eastern  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in V  212' 

Ebenezer  Tel.  Co.  v.  M.  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.,  1915 

Interference  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines XV  619 

Elderon  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Telephone  service XIII  23 

Eleva  Farmers  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  211 

,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  586 

Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  358 

,  1914    • 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  405 

v.La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  toll  rates .'. XIII  25 

V.  Western  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Telefihone  toll  rates XIV     .      180 

Evansville  Tel.  Exch.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Telephone  rates  and  regiilations VI      607;  639 

Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Beef  own.  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates  and  service XIII  540 

et  al.  V.  Lancaster  EL  Lt.  Co.,  1915 

Interference  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines XV  622 

Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  of  Lancaster  et  al..  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  42 

, v.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  140 

Farmers'  Tel.  Exch.  of  Richland  Center,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  369 

Farmers'  Union  Tel.  Co.,  In  re,  1913 

Telephone  service,  refusal  to  furnish XIII  399 

Fesenfeld  &  Barber  et  al.  v.  Mazomanie  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1909 

Telephone  service Ill  514 

V. ,  1909 

Telephone  service IV  111 

Fox  et  aL  v.  Platteville,  Rewey  <ScEllenboro  TeL  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VII  608 

Franksville  TeL  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IV  437 

Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  In  re,  1908 

Free  and  reduced  rate  service II  521 


Cases  Reported  683 


Volume  and  Page 
Friendship  Tel.  Co.,  Purves  et  al.  v.,  1914 

flelocation  of  exchange XV  530 

Gilpatrick  et  al..  National  Travelers'  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of V  678 

Glidden  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV    '        180 

Grant  County  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  incrfease  in XII  128 

Grantman  et  al.  v.  Theresa  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1915 

Telephone  service XV  582 

Great  Northern  R.  Co.  et  al.  People's  Tel  Co.  v.,  1908 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station II  822 

Green  et  al..  National  Travelers'  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of V  678 

V.  Oregon  Tel  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  534 

Greenwood  Tel.  Co.,  Howard  Sc  Sons  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Telephone  service : XV  323 

Gross  et  al  v.  Wis.  Tel  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates  from  hotel  rooms VI  432 

Hoffman  et  al  v.  Wausau  Tel  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates  and  service XI  480 

Howard  &  Sons  et  al  v.  Greenwood  Tel  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  service XV  323 

Hubertus  Tel  Co.,  Purtell  et  al  y.,  1914 

Telephone  service .- XV  152 

In  re  Appl  Argyle  Tel  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  616 

Ashland  Home  Tel  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  489 

Badger  State  Tel  &  Teleg.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  407 

Badger  Teleg.  &  Tel  Co.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in  toll  rates V  300 

Ball,  J.  L.,  1907 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  105 

Beef  River  Valley  Tel  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XII  126 

Bloomer  Tel  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IV  259 

Brodhead  Tel  Co.,  1907 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  113 

■ ,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  383 

Brooklyn  Tel  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  573 

— —  Cascade  Tel.  Co.,  1914 


Telephone  rates,  increase  in „ XIV  808 


684  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

f.  Rates  and  Service. 

In  re  Appl.  Casco  &  Brussels  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  760 

Clark  County  Tel.  Co.,  1915 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  822 

Coloma  Tel.  Co.,  1914 


Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  594 

—  County  Line  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XII  169 

—  Cumberland  Tel.  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increasein Ill  576 

—  Deerfield  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in... XII  672 

—  East  Fond  du  Lac  Co.  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XI  114 

—  Eastern  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in V  212 

—  Eleva  Farmers  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  211 

,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  586 

—  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  358 

,  1914 


Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  405 

—  Euansville  Tel  Exch.,  1911 

Telephone  rates  and  regulations VI      607;  639 

—  Farmers*  Tel.  Co.  of  Beetown,  1914 

Telephone  rates  and  service ] XIII  540 

—  of  Richland  Center,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in ., IX  369 

—  Franksville  Tel.  Co.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IV  437 

—  Glidden  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  180 

—  Grant  County  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XII  128 

—  Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  187 

,  1911 

Telephone  rates  and  service VI  647 

—  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  546 

—  Lone  Rock  Tel.  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  412 

—  Marion  Sz  Northern  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  552 


Cases  Reported  685 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Appl.  Marquette  Sc  Adams  County  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  750 

Melville  Settlement  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  415 

Midway  Tel.  Co.,  1909 


Telephone  rates,  increase  in ^ Ill  586 

,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  497 

—  Milton  &  Milton  Jet.  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  542 

—  Mineral  Point  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  rates  and  physical  connection IX  285 

,1914 

Telephone  switching  rate,  increase  in XV  70 

,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  182 

—  Morris  Tel.  Co.,  1911  . 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VII  426 

—  Mosinee  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  709 

—  Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1913 


Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  666 

—  New  Lisbon  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  readjustment  of XV  280 

—  New  Union  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Reapportionment  of  toll  earnings XV  60 

—  Norwalk  Independent  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  222 

--OakfieldTel.Co.,19U 
Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIII  726 

—  Oostburg  Tel.  Co.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IV  407 

—  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  534 

—  Ozaukee-Washington  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VII  428 

—  Peoples'  Tel.  Co.  of  Dane  County,  1908 

Telephone  rates,,  optional  toll  rate II  518 

—  Peoples'  Tel.  Co.  of  Dane  County,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  452 

—  Peoples'  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates  and  service... VIII  92 

,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  499 

—  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  1909 


Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  420 

,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VII  465 


686 Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

f.  Rates  and  Service. 

In  re  AppL  Platfeville,  Rewey  &  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  adjustment  of X  534 

Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912 

Telephone  rate,  increase  in IX        /     169 

Portage  Tel.  Co.,  1908  '        ' 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  692 

Prescott  Tel.  Exch.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  701 

Random  Lake  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XI  130 

Rhinelander  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  427 

Ripon  United  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  427 

Rockland  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  402 

of  Sec.  1797m-91,  to  Brodhead  Tel.  Co.,  1907 

Special  contract  rates II  113 

State  Long  Distance  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VIII  497 

Tomah  Elec.  &  Tel.  Co.,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  elimination  of  unjust  discriminations....  1 1  296 

■ Tomahawk  Lt.  Tel.  <Sc  Improvement  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIII  340 

Trego  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  499 

Troy  &  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  549 

, ,  1914 

Telephone  rates  and  service XIV  157 

• Viking  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  697 

Waatoma  S:  Mt.  Morris  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  419 

• Western  Crawford  Co.  Farmers'  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Checking  station,  establishment  of XIV  568 

• West  Menasha  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in. XV  224 

• Wisconsin  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  490 

In  re  Badger  Tel.  Co.  of  Richland  Center,  1908 

Telephone  service  and  rates Ill  98 

In  re  Farmers'   Union  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  service,  refusal  to  furnish XIII  399 

In  re  Free  and  Reduced  Rate  Tel.  Service,  1908 

Free  and  reduced  rate  service II  521 


Cases  Reported  687 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Invest.  Bridged  Tel.  Service  at  Princeton,  1914 

Rates  for  bridged  telephone  service,  reasonableness  of.... XV  475 
Elderon  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  service XIII  23 

Larsen  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone  service XIII  363 

People's  Tel.  Co.  et  at.  at  Fall  River,  1914 

Telephone  service XIV  793 

Pulaski  Merchants*  &  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  service X  558 

Rates  &  Regulations  of  Eagle  Tel.  Co.,  1914  » 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  397 

Service  Door  County  Tel.  Co.  et  at,  1914 

Telephone  service XV  375 

Service  Nehagamon  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  service XV  50 

Service  over  the  Tel.  Lines  Owned  and  Operated  ty  Matt 

Peffer  in  Door  County,  1914 

Telephone  service XV  375 

Standards  for  Tel.  Service  in  Wisconsin,  1914 

Standards  of  service XV  1 

Tel.  Toll  Rates,  Kingston  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Telephone  toll  rates  and  division  of  tolls XV  288 

Tel.  Toll  Rates,  Markesan  to  Kingston,  1914 

Telephone  toll  rates  and  division  of  tolls XV  288 

Tel.  Toll  Rates,  Price  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Telephone  toll  rates  and  division  of  tolls XV  288 

Wisconsin  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  service,  "silent  number"  telephones XIII  587 

et  al.  at  Fall  River,  1914 

Telephone  service XIV  793 

In  re  Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  534 

In  re  Platteville,  Rewey  ScEllenhoro  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VII  608 

In  re  Valuation  Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  1912 

Telephone  rates  and  valuation IX  169 

In  re  Wisconsin  Tel.  Co.  Toll  Station  at  Eagle  Point,  1914 

Changing  of  toll  station  to  a  rural  station XV  454 

Interurban  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  1.87 

, ,  1911 

Telephone  rates  and  service VI   •  647 

Johnson  et  al.  v.  Lodi  Tel.  Exch.,  1913 

Telephone  rates  and  service... .'..XI  713 

Juneau  El.  Co.  v.  New  Lisbon  Tel.  Co.,  1911 

Telephone  rates  and  service VIII  399 

King  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  rates  and  service X  517 


688  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

f.  Rates  and  Service. 

Kingston  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  Tel.  Toll  Rates,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  toll  rates  and  division  of  tolls XV  288 

Knapp  et  al.  v.  Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  180 

La  Crosse  Tel.  Co.,  Coady  et  al.  y.,  1915 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  831 

,  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1913 

Telephone  toll  rates XIII  25 

et  al.,  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Telephone  toll  rates , XIV  180 

— ,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  546 

Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1915 

Interference  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines XV  622 

Platteville  Etc.  Tel.  Co.  et  al,  v.,  1915 

Interference  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines ■. XV  622 

Larsen  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Telephone  service  and  rates XIII  363 

Lauder  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  19U 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station XV  33 

Lemcke,  William,  In  re  Refusal  of  Farmers*    Union  Tel.  to 
Furnish  Service  to,  1913 

Telephone  service,  refusal  to  furnish XIII  399 

Lodi  Tel.  Exch.,  Johnson  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Telephone  rates  and  service XI  713 

Lone  Rock  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1909 

Telephone  rates^^ increase  in Ill  412 

Lorenz  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1908 

Telephone  service Ill  186 

Marion  &  Northern  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  552 

Markesan  to  Kingston,  Tel.  Toll  Rates,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  toll  rates  and  division  of  tolls XV  288 

Marquette  &  Adams  County  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  750 

Marsh  et  al.,  Connor  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  extra  charges  for  long  distance  connec-  . 

tions... VI  589 

Matteson  Tel.  Co.,  Knapp  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI    ^  180 

Mazomanie  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Fesenfeld  &  Barber  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Telephone  service Ill  514 

, v.,  1909 

Telephone  service IV  111 

McGowan  v.  Rock  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914 

Rates  for  local  and  toll  service,  reasonableness  of XV  378 


Cases  Reported  689 


Volume  and  Page 
McNaighi  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station XV  433 

Melville  Settlement  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  415 

Merrill,  City  of,  &  Citizens  thereof  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1913 

Telephone 'rates,  reasonableness  of XII  490 

Midway  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  586 

, ,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  497 

Miller  et  al..  National  Travelers*  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of V  678 

Milton  <k  Milton  Jet.  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  542 

Milwaukee  L.  H.  &  T.  Co.,  Ebenezer  Tel.  Co.,  v.,  1915 

Interference  of  high  voltage  transmission  lines XV  619 

Mineral  Point  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1912 

Telephone  rates  and  physical  connection IX  285 

, ,  1914 

Telephone  switching  rates,  increase  in XV  70 

, ,  1914 


Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  182 

Morris  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in ...VII  426 

Mosinee  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  709 

Muscoda  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  666 

,  Pospichal  et  al.  v.,  1915 

Telephone  service XV  578 

National  Travelers*  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of V  678 

Nebagamon  Tel.  Co.,  Service,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  service XV  50 

New  Lisbon  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  readjustment  of XV  280 

New  Lisbon  Tel.  Co.,  Juneau  El.  Co.,  v.,  1911 

Telephone  rates  and  service VIII  399 

New  Union  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1914 

Reapportionment  of  toll  earnings XV  60 

Norwalk  Independent  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  222 

Oakfield  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIII  726 

Olson  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909 

Classification  in  telephone  service Ill  440 

Oostburg  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IV  407 


690  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

f.  Rates  and  Service. 

Oregon  Tel.  Co.,  Green  ei  al.  v.,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in ^ .<.... Ill  534 

In  re  AppL,  1909  * 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  534 

Ozaukee-Washington  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VII  428 

Payne  et  al.  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of IV  1 

Peffer,  Matt,  Service  over  Tel.  Lines  owned  and  operated  by,  in 
Door  County,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  service XV  375 

People's  Tel.  Co.  v.  E.  R.  Co.  of  M.,  et  al,  1908 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station > ...II  822 

,  In  le  AppL,  1911 

Telephone  rates  and  service ...VIII  92 

, ,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  499 

of  Dane  County,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  optional  toll  rates II  518 

,  — r-,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  452 

et  al.,  at  Fall  River,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  service XIV  793 

et  al..  Union  TeL  Co.  v.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  42 

— , ,  1913 


Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  140 

Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1909 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in Ill  420 

.- , ,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in... VII  465 

Piatt eville,  Rewey  Sc  Ellenboro  Tel.  Co.,  Fox  et  al.  v.,  \^\1  ^ 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VII  608 

,  In  re,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VII  608 

, ,  1912 


Telephone  rates,  adjustment  of X  534 

'  et  al.  v.  Lancaster  El.  Lt.  Co.,  1915 

Interference  of  high  voltage  transmission  hues XV  622 

Plymouth  Tel.  Exch.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  169 

Portage  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  692 

Pospichal  et  al.  v.  Muscoda  Mut.  TeL  Co.,  1915 

Telephone  service XV  578 


Cases  Reported  '  691 


Volume  and  Page 
Prescott  Tel.  Exch.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  701 

Price  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  Tel.  Toll  Rates,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  toll  rates  and  division  of  tolls XV  288 

Princeton  Bridged  Tel.  Service,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Rates  for  bridged  telephone  service,  reasonableness  of.... XV  475 

Pulaski  Merchants*  Sz  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Telephone  service X  558 

Purtell  et  al.  v.  Huhertus  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  service XV  152 

Purves  et  al.  v.  Friendship  Tel.  Co.,  1914 

Relocation  of  exchange XV  530 

Randolph  Bros.  Hotel  Co.  et  al..  National  Travelers*  Assn,  of 
Amer.  v.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of V  678 

Random  Lake  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XI   *  130 

Rhinelander  Mut.  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in II  427 

Richland  Center  Farmers'  Tel.  Exch.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in IX  369 

Ripon  United  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  427 

Rock  County  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  McGowan  v.,  1914 

Rates  for  local  and  toll  service,  reasonableness  of ."XV  378 

Rockland  TeL  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI         .   402 

Sauk  City  Business  Men's  Assn.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909 

Telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station Ill  346 

Standards  for  TeL  Service  in  Wis.,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  utilities,  standards  of  service XV         •       1 

State  Long  Distance  TeL  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VIII  497 

Theresa  Union  TeL  Co.,  Grantman  et  at.  v.,  Idl5 

Telephone  service XV  582 

Tighe  et  aL  v.  Clinton  TeL  Co.,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of Ill  117 

Tomah  EL  &  TeL  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1908 

Telephone  rates,  elimination  of  unjust  discriminations....  1 1  296 

'Tomahawk  Lt.  Tel.  <Sc  Improvement  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIII  340 

Trego  TeL  Co.  v.  Earl  TeL  Co.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  499 

,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XIV  499 

Troy  &  Honey  Creek  Tel.  Co.  et  al..  Arena  &  Ridgeway  Tel.  Co.  . 
v.,  1914 
Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunkjine XIII  763 


692  '  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
X.     TELEPHONE  CASES. 

f.  Rates  and  Service. 

Troy  Sc  Honey  Creek. Tel.  Co.  et  ai.  Arena  &  Ridgeway  Tel. 
Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunk  line XV  315 

,  In  re  Apply  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  549 

, ,  1914 


Telephone  rates  and  service XIV  157 

Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Crawford  Co.  F.  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  al., 
1912 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  42 

u. ,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  140 

Upham  et  at..  National  Travelers^  Ass'n  of  Amer.  v.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of ...V  678 

Viking  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  697 

Walworth  Tel.  Co.,  Dorm  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  412 

Wausau  Tel.  Co.,  Hoffman  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Telephone  rates  and  service XI  480 

Wautoma  &  Mt.  Morris  Farmers'  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in VI  419 

Western  Crawford  Co.  Farmers'  Mut.  Tel.  Co.  et  al..  Union  Tel. 
Co.  v.,  1912 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  42 

, v.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of ...XII  140 

Western  Wisconsin  Tel.  Co.  et  at.,  Etirick  Tel.  Co.  u.,  1914 

Telephone  toll  rates XIV  180 

West  Menasha  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  224 

West  Spring  Green  Line  et  al..  Arena  <Sc  R.  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunk  line XV  315 

West  Spring  Line  et  al..  Arena  <&  Ridgeway  Tel.  Co.  v.,  1914 

Rates  for  switching  service  and  use  of  trunk  hne XIII  763 

Wisconsin  Tel.  Co.,  Berend  v.,  1909 

Telephone  service,  regulation  requiring  deposit  as  pre- 
requisite for  service IV  150 

,  Columbus  Advancement  Assn.  p.,  1910 

Telephone  rates  and  service IV  414 

et  al.,  Connor  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Telephone  rates,  extra  charges  for  long  distance  con- 
nections  VI  589 

,  Davis  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Telephone  rates  and  service IV  370 

,  Gross  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Telephone  rates  from  hotel  rooms VI  432 


Cases  Reported  693 


Volume  and  Page 
Wisconsin  Tel.  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Telephone  service,  "silent  number"  telephones XIII  587 

,  King  et  at.  v.,  1912 

Telephone  rates  and  service X  517 

,  Lorenz  et  al.  v.,  1908 

Telephone  service Ill  186 

zt  al.,  McGowan  v.,  1914 

Rates  for  local  and  toll  service XV  378 

— ,  City  of  Merrill  &  Citizens  thereof,  v.,  1913 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  490 

— ,  National  Travelers'  Assn.  of  Amer.  v.,  1910 

Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of V  678 

— ,  Olson  et  al.  v.,  1909 

Classification  in  telephone  service Ill  440 

— ,  Payne  et  al.  v.,  1909 


Telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of IV  1 

,  Toll  Station  at  Eagle  Point,  In  re,  1914 

Changing  of  toll  station  to  a  rural  station XV  454 

XI.  TOLL  BRIDGE  CASES. 

Marcus  et  al.  v.  Postel  &  Swingle,  1913 

Toll  bridge  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  47 

Postel  <Sc  Swingle,  Marcus  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Toll  bridge  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  47 

Sturgeon  Bay,  City  of,  v.  Sturgeon  Bay  Bridge  Co.,  1911 

Toll  bridge  rates  and  repairs VII  727 

Sturgeon  Bay  Bridge  Co.,  Sturgeon  Bay,  City  of,  v.,  1911 
*  Toll  bridge  rates  and  repairs VII  -  727 

XII.  WATER  UTILITY  CASES. 

a.  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  and  Necessity. 

In  re  Appl.  People's  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1911 

For  construction  of  water  utility VII  579 

People's  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  Appl,  1911 

For  construction  of  water  utility VII  579 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Alter  et  al.  v.  Board  of  Water  Comm.  of  Manitowoc,  1912 

Water  rates  and  service X  387 

V. ,  1914 

Water  rates,  ownership  of  meters  and  service XIV  690 

et  al.  V.  City  of  Manitowoc,  1914 

Water  rates,  ownership  of  meters  and  service XIV  690 

Antigo  Water  Co.,  Hill  et  al.  v.,  1908 

Water  service II  627 

, v.,  1909  . 

Water  rates  and  service Ill  623 


694  ^        Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
XII.     WATER  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Antigo  Water  Co.,  In  re  Valuation  of,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XIII       '  156 

Appleton,  City  of,  v.  Appleion  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1910 

Water  rates  and  service V  215 

Appleton  Water  Wks.  Co.,  City  of  Appleton  v.,  1910 

Water  rates  and  service V  215 

In  re,  1910 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility VI  97^ 

Ashland,  City  of,  v.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1909 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of IV^  273 

A'shland  Water  Co.,  City  of  Ashland  v.,  1909 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of IV  273 

,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Water  rates  and  service ^ XIV      1;  721 

Atwood  et  al.  v.  City  of  Lake  Mills,  1914 

Extension  of  water  mains XIV  210 

Bayfield  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Electric  and  water  service XI  686 

Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  Civic  League  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Water  rates  and  service X  661 

,  In  re  Valuation  o/,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XIII  169 

Beloit,  City  of,  Beloit  Water  Gas  &  El.  Co.  v.,  1910 

Extension  of  water  mains V       459;  617 

V. ,1911 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates  and  service VII  187 

, v.,  1912 

Extension  of  water  mains IX  250 

Beloit  Water,  Gas  &  El.  Co.  v.  City  of  Beloit,  1910 

Extension  of  water  mains V       459;  617 

-, v.,  1911 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates  and  service VII  187 

v. ,  1912 

Extension  of  water  mains IX  250 

Board  of  Water  Comm.  of  Manitowoc,  Alter  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Water  rates  and  service X  387 

, v.,  1914 

Water  rates,  ownership  of  meters  and  service XIV  690 

Cashton  Mun.  Lt.  Sc  W.  Comm.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  410 

Caswell  et  al.  v.  City  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.  of  Ft.  Atkinson,  1913 

Electric  and  water  rates XII  260 

Chippewa  Falls  Water  Wks.  and  Lt.  Co.y  In  re  Invest.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates V  302 

,  Cunningham  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates V  302 


Cases  Reported  695 


^  Volume  and  Page 

City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  City  of  Marinette  v.,  1911 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  334 

City  Water  Co.  of  Sheboygan,  In  re,  1909 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility Ill  371 

City  Water  Wks.  Comm.,  Sheboygan,  Roenitz  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of V  434 

Civic  League  et  al.  v.  Beaver  Dam  W.  Co.,  1912 

Water  rates  and  service X  661 

Clinton,  Village  of.  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  496 

Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Electric  and  water  rates  and  water  service XI  449 

Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chippewa  Falls  Water  Works  &  Lt.  Co., 
1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates V  302 

Darlington,  City  of,  Kirwin  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VI        26;  408 

Darlington  EL  Lt.  &  Water  Power  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service,  and  water  rates V  397 

Delavan,  City  of.  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XII  148 

Dennett  et  al.  v.  City  of  Sheboygan,  1914 

Water  rates  and  service XIV  634 

Dick  et  al.  v.  Madison  Water  Comm.,  1910 

Water  rates  and  service V  731 

Durand  Mun.  W.  Wks.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Water  meters  and  services XI  169 

Eau  Claire,  City  of.  West  et  aL  v.,  1912 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  134 

Elkhart  Lake,  VilL  of.  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of. XI  690 

Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  Kittleson  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Water  and  electric  rates XIV  485 

Evansville  Mun.  EL  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  In  re  Invest.,  1912 

Electric  and  water  rates XI  197 

Fennimore  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  In  re,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XII  194 

Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.  City  of  Tomahawk,  1911 

Water  rates  and  service VIII  40 

Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  In  re,  1910 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility ..V  482;  VIII  259 

FL  Atkinson  W.  <k  Lt  Comm.,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Electric  and  water  rates XII    260;  729 

Green  Bay,  City  of,  v.  Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  236 

Green  Bay  Water  Co.,  City  of  Green  Bay  v.,  1913 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of .' XI  236 

,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Water  rates,  readjustment  of XV  84 


696  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
XII.     WATER  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Green  Bay  Water  Co.,  In  re  Invest.,  1913 

Water  rates  and  service XII  734 

Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1908 

Water  service II  627 

V. ,  1909 

Water  rates  and  service Ill  623 

Hillsboro  W.  Wks.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Water  rates  and  service. VIII  85 

Hudson  Water  Wks.,  In  re  Invest.,  1908 

Rules  and  regulations  governing  meters Ill  138 

Hughes  et  al.  v.  Watertown  Water  Wks.,  1914 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of XIV  669 

Hurley  W.  Co.,  Town  of  Vaughn  v.,  1914 

Water  rates  and  service XIV  291 

In  re  Appl.  Cashton  Mun.  Lt.  &  W.  Conun.,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  410 

Clinton,  Village  of,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  496 

Columbus  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913  ^ 

Electric  and  water  rates  and  water  service XI  449 

Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1910 

Electric  rates  and  service,  and  water  rates ; V  397 

Delavan,  City  of,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XII  148 

Durand  Mun.  W.  Wks.  Plant,  1912 

Water  meters  and  services XI  169 

Elkhart  Lake,  Village  of,  1913 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  690 

Fennimore  Municipal  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XII  194 

Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt.  Comm.,  1913 

Electric  and  water  rates XII    260;  729 

Green  Bay  Water  Co.,  1914 

Water  rates,  readjustment  of XV  84 

Hillsboro  W.  Wks.,  1911 

Water  rates  and  service VIII  85 

Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1910 

Electric  and  water  rates V  •  555 

,  Kenosha  Mun.  W.  Plant,  1914 

Water  rates,  increase  in XV  426 

Lake  Mills  Lt.  <Sc  W.  Comm.,  1912 

Water  and  electric  utilities,  financial  management XI  160 

Madison  City  Water  Works,  1909 

Water  rates,  readjustment  of Ill  299 

Manitowoc,  City  of,  as  El.  &  Water  Utility,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates,  adjustment  of XV  212 


Cases  Reported  697 


Volume  and  Page 
In  re  Appl.  Milwaukee,  City  of,  1911 

Uniform  accounts VIII  406 

,  1912 

Water  meters,  installation  of XI  195 

Neenah,  City  of,  1912 

Water  rates  and  service XI  119 

New  Glarus  Lt.  Sc  W.  Plant,  1913 


Water  rates,  increase  in XI  711 

—  Oconomowoc  Water  Dept.,  1914 

Water  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  394 

—  Oconto  City  Water  Supply  Co.,  1910 

Regulations  as  to  payment  of  rates VI  691 

,1911 

Water  rates .'.., VII  497 

,  1911 

Water  rates VIII  388 

—  Oregon,  Village  of,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  548 

—  Park  Falls  Mun.  Water  Wks.,  1914 

Water  rates,  adjustment  of XV  284 

People's  W.  Lt.  Sc  P.  Co.,  1912 


Water  rates,  adjustment  of x X  651 

Richland  Center  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates XIV  590 

Sparta,  City  of,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  and  readjustment  of XII  532 

Viroqua,  City  of,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  330 

In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water  Co.,  1914 

Water  rates  and  service XIV      1;  721 

Bayfield  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1913 

Electric  and  water  service XI  686 

Chippewa  Falls  Water  Wks.  &  Ltg.  Co.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates V  302 

Evansville  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  1912     . 

Electric  and  water  rates XI  197 

Extension  of  Water  Main  by  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1914 

Extension  of  water  main XV  370 

Green  Bay  W.  Co.,  1913 

Water  rates  and  service XII  734 

Hudson  Water  Works,  1908 

Rules  and  regulations  governing  meters Ill  138 

Viola  Mun.  Water  Plant,  1914 

Extension  of  water  mains XIII  702 

— ■-  Waterloo  Mun.  W.  &  El.  Plant,  1914 

Water  and  electric  rates,  management XV  534 

In  re  Lake  Geneva  W,  &  Lt.  Co.,  1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility VI  403 


698  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
XII.     WATER  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service.  ^ 

In  re  Manitowoc,  City  of,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates XIV  697 

In  re  Purchase  Appleton  Water  Wks.,  1910 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility VI  97 

City  Water  Co.  of  Sheboygan,  1909 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility Ill  371 

Fond  du  Lac  Water  Co.,  1910 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility V  482 

-,1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility VIII  259 

Manitowoc  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility VII  71 

,1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility.. VIII  266 

Janesville  Water  Wks.  Plant,  1915 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XV  674 

Oshkosh  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XII  602 

-Racine  Water  Co.,  1912 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility...;. X  543 

In  re  Valuation  Antigo  Water  Co.,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XIII  156 

Beaver  Dam  Water  Co.,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XIII  169 

Janesville  Water  Co.,  1913  ' 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XIII  29 

Whitewater  Water  Wks.  Co.,  1912 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility X  524 

Janesville,  City  of,  v.  Janesville  W.  Co.,  1911 

Water  rates  and  service VII  628 

v. ,  1914 

'    Water  rates XV  117 

Janesville  Water  Co.,  In  re  Vai,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility .....XIII  29 

Janesville,  City  of,  v.,  1911 

Water  rates  and  service VII  628 

•, v.,  1914 

Water  rates XV  117 

Water  Main,  In  re  Extension,  1914 

Extension  of  water  main XV  370 

,  In  re  Purchase,  1915 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XV  674 

Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Electric  and  water  rates V  555 

Kenosha  Mun.  W.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Water  rates,  increase  in XV  426 


Cases  Reported  699 


Volume  and  Page 
Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Darlington,  1910 

Water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VI  26 

V. ,  1911 

Water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VI  408 

Kittleson  et  al.  v.  Elroy  Mun.  W.  &  Lt.  Plant,  1914 

Water  and  electric  rates XIV  485 

La  Crosse  Board' of  Water  Comm.,  Torrance  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Water  supply VII  27 

Lake  Geneva  W.  Sc  Lt.  Co.,  In  re,  1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility VI  403 

Lake  Mills,  City  of,  Atwood  et  al.  p.,  1914 

Extension  of  water  mains XIV  210 

Webber  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Water  service  and  extension  of  mains XII  577 

Lake  Mills  Lt.  &  W.  Comm.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Water  and  electric  utilities,  financial  management .XI  160 

Lothrop  et  al.  v.  Village  of  Sharon,  1912 

Gas  and  water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VIII  479 

Madison  City  Water  Wks.,  In  re  AppL,  1909 

Water  rates,  readjustment  of... Ill  299 

Madison,  City  of,  Madison  Realty  Co.  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Extension  of  water  mains X  447 

Madison  Realty  Co.  et  al.  v.  City  of  Madison,  1912 

Extension  of  water  mains X  447 

Madison  Water  Comm.,  Dick  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Water  rates  and  service V  731 

Manitowoc,  City  of.  Alter  et  al.  v.,  1914 

Water  rates,  ownership  of  meters  and  service XIV  690 

as  El.  &  Water  Utility,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates,  adjustment  of XV  212 

,  Markham  et  a/,  y.,  1912 

Water  rates  and  service X  387 

, v.,  1914 

Water  rates,  ownership  of  meters  and  services* XIV  690 

,  In  re,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates XIV  697 

Manitowoc  Water  Wks.  Co.,  In  re,  1911 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utihty VII      71;  266 

Marinette,  City  of,  v.  City  W.  Co.  of  Marinette,  1911 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of VIII  334 

Markham  et  al.  v.  City  of  Manitowoc,  1912 

Water  rates  and  service X  387 

V. ,  1914 

Water  rates,  ownership  of  meters  and  service XIV  690 

Mellen,  City  of,  v.  Mellen  Water  &  Lt.  Co.,  1910 

Water  service ..V  202 

Mellen  Water  &  Lt.  Co.,  City  of  Mellen  v.,  1910 

Water  service V  202 


700  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
XII.     WATER  UTILITY  CASES. 

b.  Rates  and  Service. 

Milwaukee^  City  of.  In  re  AppL,  1911 

Uniform  accounts VlII  406 

, ,1912 

Water  meters,  installation  of XI  195 

Monifort,  Village  of,  Rollins  et  al.  v.,  1913 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  278 

Neenah,  City  of.  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Water  rates  and  service XI  119 

New  Glarus  Lt.  &  W.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  711 

Oconomowoc  Water  Dept.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Water  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  394 

Oconto,  City  Water  Supply  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1910 

Regulations  as  to  payment  of  rates ...V  691 

, ,1911  .  ^ 

Water  rates VII  497 

, .  1911 

Water  rates ...VIII  388 

u.  City  of  Oconto,  1912 

Location  of  water  meters X  584 

Oconto,  City  of,  Oconto  City  W.  Supply  Co.  v.,  1912 

Location  of  water  meters ,... X  584 

Oregon,  Village  of.  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  548 

Oshkosh  W.  Wks.  Co.,  In  re  VaL,  1913 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XII  602 

Park  Falls  Mun.  W.  Wks.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Water  rates,  adjustment  of XV  284 

People's  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1912 

Water  rates,  adjustment  of X  651 

Racine  W.  Co.,  In  re,  1912 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility X  543 

Richland  Center  EL  LL  Sz  W.  Plant,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Electric  and  water  rates XIV  590 

Ripon,  City  of,  v.  Ripon  Light  &  Water  Co.   1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates  and  service V  1 

Ripon  Lt.  Sc  Water  Co.,  City  of  Ripon  v.,  1910 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates  and  service V  1 

Roenitz  et  at.  u.  City  Water  Wks.  Conun.,  Sheboygan,  1910 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of V  434 

Rollins  et  aL  v.  VilL  of  Montfort,  1913 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  278 

Sharon,  Village  of,  Lothrop  et  aL  v.,  1912 

Gas  and  water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VIII  479 

V.  United  H.  LL  &  P.  Co.,  1913 

Water  rates  and  service XIII  1 


Cases  Reported  *  701 


Volume  and  Page 
Sheboygan,  City  of,  Dennett  et  al.  ».,  1914 

Water  rates  and  service XIV  634 

Sheboygan,  City  Wafer  Co.,  In  re,  1909 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility Ill  371 

Sheboygan  City  Water  Wks.  Comm.,  Roenitz  et  al.  v.,  1910 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of V  434 

Sparta,  City  of.  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XII  532 

Stevens  Point,  City  of,  v.  Stevens  Point  Water  Co.,  1911 

Water  rates  and  service VI  458 

Stevens  Point  Water  Co.,  City  of  Stevens  Point  v.,  1911 , 

Water  rates  and  service VI  458 

Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.  Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates X  704 

Superior  W.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  Superior  Comm'l  Club  et  al.  v.,  1912 

Electric,  gas  and  water  rates X  704 

Tomahawk,  City  of,  Fitzgerald  et  al.  v.,  1911 

Water  rates  and  service VIII  40 

Torrance  et  al.  v.  La  Crosse  Board  of  W.  Comm.,  1911 

Water  supply VII  27 

United  H.  Li.  <Sc  P.  Co.,  Village  of  Sharon  v.,  1913     . 

Water  rates  and  service XIII  1 

Vaughn,  Town  of,  v.  Hurley  W.  Co.,  1914 

Water  rates  and  service XIV  291 

Viola  Mun.  Water  Plant,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Extension  of  water  mains XIII  702 

Viroqua,  City  of.  In  re  AppL,  1913 

Water  rates,  increase  in XI  330 

Washburn,  City  of,  v.  Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910 

Water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VI  74 

Washburn  W.  Wks.  Co.,  City  of  Washburn  v.,  1910 

Water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VI  74 

Waterloo  Mun.  W.  Sc  El.  Plant,  In  re  Invest.,  1914 

Water  and  electric  rates,  management XV  534 

Watertown  Water  Wks.,  Hughes  ef  a/,  i;.,  1914 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of XIV  669 

Webber  et  al.  v.  City  of  Lake  Mills,  1913 

Water  service  and  extension  of  mains XII  577 

West  et  al.  v.  City  of  Eau  Claire,  1912 

Water  rates,  reasonableness  of IX  134 

"  Whitewater  W.  Wks.  Co.,  In  re  Val.,  1912 

Municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility X  524 

XIII.     WATER  POWER  CASES. 

Apple  River  W.  P.  Franchise  for.  In  re  AppL,  1915 

Franchise  to  construct  water  power  dam XV  712 

Arnquist  et  al.,  In  re  AppL,  1915 

Franchise  to  construct  water  power  dam XV  712 


702  Cases  Reported 


Volume  and  Page 
XIII.     WATER  POWER  CASES. 

Certain  Freeholders,  Taxpayers  and  Residents  of  Dodge  Co.  v. 
McWilliams,  1914 

Navigable  waters,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water.. XIII  603 

Darlington  EL  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  Law  et  at.  v.,  1912 

Dams,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water X  380 

Dodge  Co.,  Certain  Freeholders,  Taxpayers  and  Residents  of,  v. 
McWilliams,  1914 

Navigable, water,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water. ... XIII  603 

Freeholders,  Taxpayers  and  Residents  of  Dodge  Co.  v.  McWil- 
liams, 1914  • 

Navigable  waters,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water.. XIII  603 

In  re  Appl.  Arnquist  et  at.,  1915 

Franchise  to  construct  water  power  dam XV  712 

■ for  W.  P.  Franchise  on  Apple  River,  1915 

Franchise  to  construct  water  power  dam XV  712 

Long  Lake  Impr.  Assn.,  1915 

Level  and  flow  of  water XV  708 

■ New  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Co.,  1915 

Franchise  to  construct  water  power  dam XV  712 

Wisconsin  River  Power  Co.,  1914 

Regulation  of  height  of  dam XV  471 

In  re  High  Water  Marie  on. Rest  Lake  Reservoir,  1914 

Regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water XV  438 

In  re  Obstructions  in  the  Rock  River  at  Janesville,  1914 

Navigable  waters,  obstructions  in  stream XIV  190 

In  re  Petition  Paramount  P.  &  Realty  Co.,  1914 

Navigable  waters,  obstructions  in  stream XIV  474 

In  re  Regulation  of  Flow  of  Rock  River  in  Mayville,  1915 

Level  and  flow  of  water XV  698 

In  re  Regulation  Level  of  Water  on  Long  Lake,  1915 

Level  and  flow  of  water XV  708 

In  re  Request  of  Paramount  P.  <Sc  Realty  Co.,  1912 

Repairs  on  dam IX  331 

Law  et  at.  v.  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.,  1912 

Dams,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water X  380 

Long  Lake  Impr.  Assn.,  In  re  Appl.,  1915 

Level  and  flow  of  water ^ XV  708 

Long  Lake,  Level  of  Water  on.  In  re  Reg.,  1915 

Level  and  flow  of  water XV  708 

Mayville,  Flow  of  Rock  River  in,  In  re  Reg.,  1915 

Level  and  flow  of  water XV  698 

McWilliams,  Certain  Freeholders,  Taxpayers  and  Residents  of 
Dodge  Co.  v.,  1914 
Navigable  waters,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water..  XI 1 1  603 

New  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Co.,  In  re  Appl.,  1915 

Franchise  to  construct  water  power  dam XV  712 


Cases  Reported  703 


Volume  and  Page 
Paramount  P.  &  Realty  Co.,  In  re  Petition  of,  1914 

Navigable  waters,  obstructions  in  stream XIV  474 

,  In  re  Request  of,  1912 

Repairs  on  dam IX  331 

Residents,  Freeholders  and  Taxpayers  of  Dodge  Co.  v.  McWil- 
liams,  1914 

Navigable  waters,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water.. XI 1 1  603 

Rent  Lake  Reservoir,  High  Water  Mark  on.  In  re,  1914 

Regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water XV  4,38 

Rock  River  at  Janesville,  In  re  Obstructions  in,  1914 

Navigable  waters,  obstructions  in  stream XIV  190 

Rock  River  in  Mayville,  Flow  of.  In  re  Reg.,  1915 

Level  and  flow  of  water XV  698 

Taxpayers,  Freeholders  and  Residents  of  Dodge  Co.  v.  McWil- 
liams,  1914 

Navigable  waters,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water.. XIII  603 

Wisconsin  River  Power  Co.,  In  re  AppL,  1914 

Regulation  of  height  of  dam XV  471 


r 


LAWS  CITED 


TABLE  OF  LAWS  CITED. 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Interstate  Commerce  Act. 

Sec.  1 1,7,14 

Sec.  2 1,  8,  14,  212 

213,  214,  221,  304 

Sec.  3 1,  9,  14,  304;  II,  245 

Sec.  6 1,  8,  304;  II,  245 

Sec.  10-c II,  245 

Sec.  12 IL  245 

Sec.  22 1,  10,  12,  13,  14 

Wisconsin  Constitution. 

Art.  I,  sees.  5,  13,  22 XIV,  531 

Art.  I,  sec.  13 X,  546,  550 

Art.  IV,  sec.  1 XIV,  531 

Art,  VII,  sec.  2 XIV,  531 

Art.  XI,  sec.  1 1, 335 

Art.  XI,  sec.  2 XV,  265 

sec.  3 XIII,  30 

sec.  3 X,  546,  552 

sec.  13 XIII,  30 

Revised  Statutes  of  1849. 

Ch.34 XIV,201 

Wisconsin  Statutes  of  1898. 
Ch.  86. ..IV,  179;  V,  527; 

VIII,  712,  736 
Gh.  87.. ..II,  824;  IV,  127, 
179;  V,  449,  527;  VI,  5,  7, 
474;  VII,  770,  771;  VIII, 
28,  67,  69,  75,  291,  292, 
301,  305,  582,  583,  699, 
700,  710,  712,  735,  736; 

IX,  2,  229,  515 

Sec.  940^ II,  689 

Sec.  959-48 II,  687 

Sec.  1037a XV,  630 

Sec.  1265 VI,  426 

Sec.  1276 VI,  427 

Sec.  1753 11,60,61 

Sec.  1778 II,  686;  VII,  445 

Sec.  1780 II,  686 

Sec.  1780a II,  686 

Sec.  17806 II,  686,  688 

Sec.  1788 X,  66 

Sec.  1797 II,  572 

Sec.  1798 1,  750,  753;  II,  118 

Sec.  1801. ...I,  223,  227,  228, 
229,  230,  231,  287,  834; 

IV  393 
Sec.  1802... I,  167;  II,  572;' 

IV,  400,  793,  794,  796 

Sec.  1802a V,  211 

Sec.  1809 I,  308 

Sec.  1809,  subdiv.  3 Ill,  296 

23 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Sec.  1809a II,  348,  349 

Sec.  1820... I,  754,  837,  840; 

VII,  406 
Sec.  1828,  I.  118,  634,  635, 

757;  II,  369,  370,  373,  381 
Sec.  1831  I,  763;  VII,  403, 

406,  756 
Sec.  1831a,  III,  44,  50,  52, 

296;  IV,  400, 401,  793,  794, 

796;  VI,  197;  VII,  743 

Sec.  1832 1,  765;  VII,  464 

Sec.  1836. .. I,  308;  III,  51;  V, 

187,  188;  VIII,  696 

Sec.  1846 II,  587 

Sec.  1862 V,  527 

Sec.  1862a II,  688 

Sec.  1863 V,  527 

Sec.  1897 II,  572 

Sec.  4595 VIII,  527 

Wisconsin  Statutes. 

Ch.  406 X,  552 

Ch.  41 X,  552 

Sec.  51.43 XV,  630 

Sec.  697-35 XIV,  178 

Sec.  925-956 XI,  162 

Sec.  925-956  to  925-95cXIV,  650 

Sec.  925-95C XI,  162 

Sec.  925-95e XI,  162 

Sec.  925-133 X,  525 

Sec.  925-142a X,  525 

Sec.  926-11 X,  552 

Sec.  927-11  to 927-19. ..VIII,  262 

Sec.  927-17 X,  550 

Sec.  940J-41 Ill,  296 

Sec.  976/ XV,  261 

Sec.  1299/2-1... .V,  188;  VIII, 

695;  XIV,  800;  XV,  22 

Sec.  1299A:-1 XIII,  435 

Sec.  13886 - XV,  368 

Sec.  1596 XIV,  190,192, 

193,  200,  201,  474 

Sec.  1596-1 XIV,  201 

Sec.  1596-2-4 XIV,  201 

Sec.  1596-47 X,  382 

Sec.  1596-47,  par.  2 X.  381 

Sec.  1596-50  to  1596-79  incl. 

.■ XV,  714,  722 

Sec.  1596-59 XV,  721 

Sec.  1596-60,  subsec.  1 ' 

XV,  717,  719,  722 

subsec.  2 

XV,  714,  717,  721,  723 

Sec.  1596-62 XV,  721 


706 


Laws  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Sec.  1596-69,  subsec.  6... .XV,  720 

Sec.  1596-73 X,  381,  382 

Sec.  1753-9 V,  284 

Sec.  1753-50,  subsec.  4 

XIV,  140,  141 

Sec.  1778a,  b:c,  d,  ej,  g.  III,  151 

Sec.  1778/1 Ill,  151;  VI,  198 

Sec.  1791a XIII,  592 

Sec.  1797-1  to  1797-38 

XIV,  447 

Sec.  1797-lm VII,  743 

Sec.  1797-2 .....XII,  230 

Sec.  1797-3 V,  424 

Sec.  1797-3 IX,  395 

Sec.  1797-4, 111,570,599; 

V,  195;  XIV,  764;  XV,  407 

Sec.  1797-4a XI,  134,  135 

Sec.  1797-4,  subd.  c Ill,  570 

Sec.  1797-4e XIII,     92 

Sec.  1797-5 IV,  473 

Sec.  1797-6 VII,   6;  XI,  387 

Sec.  1797-9 V,  424;  XIV,  342 

Sec.  1797-9,  subsec.  2.. ..XV,  232 

Sec.  1797-10 V,  424 

Sec.  1797-lOm VIII,   104; 

IX,  60,  61;  XI,  641 
Sec.  1797-11. ...IV,  473,  476; 

V,  424;  IX,  70,  71,  72;  XII,      , 
230;  XV,  820 
Sec.  1797-llm...III,  44;  VI, 

503,   558;  VII,   145;    XI, 

179;  XIII,  411,  622;  XIV, 

252*  XV  419 
Sec.  1797-llm,  subd.  l.!..IV,'  795 

subd.    2,    IV,    796;   XIV,  117 
Sec.  1797-11/77,  subd.  3. ..IV,  796 

Sec.  1797-12 V,  188,  475; 

VII,  20,  599 

Sec.  1797-12 

XII,  498,  705;  XV,  610 

Sec.  1797-12e....IX,  220,  .537; 

XII,  498,  704,    705,  706; 

XIII,  431,  479;  XIV,  178, 

800,  801;  XV,  610 

Sec.  1797-12e,  f,  g,  h,  ij 

XIV,  447 

Sec.  1797-12/... XIV,  178 

Sec.  1797-12n VI,  558 

Sec.  1797-120 ..XV,  204 

Sec.  1797-14 IV,  473 

Sec.  1797-14,  subd.  e IV,  473 

Sec.  1797-14,  subd./. IV,  463 

Sec.  1797-16 VIII,  686 

Sec.  1797-18 V,  401 

Sec.  1797-22-2 XIV,  259 

Sec.  1797-22.2 '.XIV,  282 

Sec.  1797-28, V, 401, 475;  IX,  399 
Sec.  1797-31,  V,  188;  XIV,  447 
Sec.  1797-37/n....III,181,336, 

340,  341,  342,    391,   599; 

IV,  174;  V,  428,  642;  VI, 


Vol.  and  Pages 
668;    VII,  776,  778,  780, 
781;  VIII,  35,  38,478,509; 
X,  633;  XI,  273.  495,  702, 
707;  XII,  438;  XIII,  469, 

781;  XV,  648 

Sec.  1797-39  to  1797-60 

XIII,  271 

Sec.  1797-43,  par.  2 V,  637 

Sec.  1797-44 III.  296 

Sec.  1797-45 XIII,  270 

Sec.  1797-46..XIII,  65,  270,  710 

Sec.  1797-47 XIII,  270 

Sec.  1797-51 Ill,  281 

Sec.  1797-53 Ill,  296 

Sec.  1797-56 .....Ill,  296 

Sec.  1797-58 XV,  819 

Sec.  1797-61 XIII,  270 

Sec.  1797g-l..:. IV,  393 

Sec.  1797^-1,  subsec.  1....XV,  786 
Sec.  1797^-2  ...IV,  393;  XV, 

35,  434 
Sec.  1797/n-l  to  1797/77-108 

XIV,  294 

Sec.  1797/77-1  to  1797/n-109 

VI,  99 

Sec.  1797/n-l,  subdiv.  5 

Ill,  84;  VI,  118 

Sec.  1797/77-3  .IV,  623;  XIII,  592 

Sec.  1797/n-4 XIV,   661; 

XI,  754;  XV,  102 
Sec.  1797/77-15....XI,  193,  456,  475 
Sec.  1797/77-23. ..Ill,  140;  IV, 
743;  VIII,  271;  XII,  418; 

XIV,  356 

Sec.  1797/n-27 V,  303,  401 

Sec.  1797/n-28 IV,  371 

Sec.  1797/77-30,  sub.  2 XII,  73 

Sec.  1797/77-33 XII,  354; 

XIV,  681 

Sec.  1797/77-43 V,  690;  VII,  20 

Sec.  1797/77-46 IV.    624 

745;  V,  337;  VI,  324;  VII, 
166,  381,  491;  IX,  436;  X, 
805;  XII,  210;  XIII,  65,  710 

Sec.  1797/77-61 IV,  624 

Sec.  1797/77-64  to  1797/77-73 

XI   755 
Seb"r797m-7i".'.".'.'.XIIl',""257,' 
439;   XIV,  539,  569,  570, 

815;  XV,  16,  454 

Sec.  1797/n-76 XV,  262 

Sec.  1797/77-77 IV,  300, 

301;  XIV,  293 

Sec.  1797/n-78 ..XV,  265 

Sec.  1797/n-79 X,  525 

Sec.  1797/n-79,  subd.  2;.....V,  486 
Sec.  1797/77-80.. ..V,  486;  VI, 
99;  VIII,  261;  X,  547,  548; 

XIV,  294;  XV,  260 


Laws  Cited 


101 


Vol.  and  Pa^es 
Sec.  1797m-81. ...X,  525,  547, 

548;  XV,  262,  263 
Sec.  1797/72-82  ...III,   80;  X. 

525  526 
Sec.  1797/n-83..V,  488;  VI,'  123 
Sec.  1797/n-84, 85  and  86....V,  488 
Sec.  1797m-87....III,  297;  XI,  302 
Sec.  1797/77-89. ..Ill,  442;  XII,  162 

Sec.  1797/n-89 XV,  135 

Sec.  1797/72-90... Ill,  103,  112 

141,  142,  502;  VI,  58,  203; 

VII,  611;  X,  472;  XI,  184, 

408;  XII,  303;   XIII,  54, 

400,  580;  XIV,  710;  XV,  614 

Sec.  1797/72-91....IV,  301,  304, 

305;  XV,  797,  814 

Sec.  1797/77-91,  par.  2 IV,  300 

Sec.  1797/72-92....XII,354;XI,  683 

Sec.  1797/n-95 XIII,  258 

Sec.  1797/n-99 IX,  545,  551 

Sec.  1797/n-102 XV,  16 

Sec.  1797/72-105....V,  303;  VI, 
44,  718;  VIII,  142;    XII,  265 

Sec.  1797/77-108 X,  552 

Sec.  1798a XV,  347 

Sec.  1798/77 XIII,  596 

Sec.  1801  ...VIII,  246;  XIV, 

583,  584 

Sec.  1802 Ill,  49,  296; 

XIII,  622;  XV,  419 

Sec.  1802a XII,  558 

Sec.  1802-a XIV,  252 

Sec.  1802c IX,  71;  XV,  820 

Sec.  1802rf IX,  71 

Sec.  1809-e. XIV,  178 

Sec.  1810 XV,  274,  275,  276 

Sec.  1811 XV,  275 

Sec.  1813 XV,  275,  276 

Sec.  1814a XV,  494 

Sec.  1831a XV,  419 

Sec.  1836 XII,  705,  706; 

XIV,  447,  448,  551,  552 

Sec.  1836a,  subd.  1 Ill,  297 

Sec.  1862 XV,  664 

Sec.  1862^ XIII,  90 

Sec.  1863 XV,  664 

Sec.  1863a,  subd.  1 IV,  760 

Sec.  3187-a XIV,  798 

Sec.  3214 XII,  231 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1852. 

Ch.426 XIV,  192.  195 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1854. 

Ch.  29 XV,  699 

Gh.  331,  sees.  7,  8.. XIV,  477,  478 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1866. 

Ch.359 X,  715 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1882. 

Ch.  196 XIII,  592 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1885. 

Ch.  227 X,  524 

Ch.  499 XI,  304 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Wisconsin  Laws  of  1887. 

Ch.  121 X,  524 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1889. 

Ch.  221 X,  524 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1891. 

Ch.  405 ...X,  524 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1893. 

Ch.  236 XIII,  592 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1897. 

Ch.  175 X,  343,  345 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1905. 

Ch.  19,  sec.  6 1,640 

Ch.  263 XIII,  498 

Ch.  317,  sec.  1 1,640 

Ch.  348 :il,  757 

Ch.  348,  sees.  1,  2  and  3.... 1 1,  757 

Ch.  348,  sees.  4  and  5 II,  758 

Ch.  362 II,  354,  824;  III, 

44,  471;  IV,  136,  179,392; 
V,  195,  418,  449;  VI,  5, 
401,  474;  VII,  770,  771; 
VIII,  28,  67,  69,  75,  246, 
291,  292,  301,  305,  582, 
583,  699,  700,  710,  712, 
735,  736;  IX,  2,  229,  515; 

X,  11,  12,  335,  353,  430 
Ch.  362,  sec.  2... I,  178,  179, 

185,  186,  189,  632,  733.  734 
Ch.  362,  sec.  3...  I,  6,  7, 33, 41, 
43,  223,  227,  230,  231,  500, 
532,538,632;  11,116.119. 

120,  131,  245,  593,  852 
Ch.  362,  sec.  4...  I,  6,  7,  110, 
112,   113,   114,    118,   303, 
833,841;  11,119,293,608; 

III,  56;  IV,  777 

Ch.  362,  sec.  4a .'...I,'llo',  303 

Ch.  362,  sec.  4c I,  110,  303 

Ch.  362,  sec.  5 II,  293 

Ch.  362,  sec.  6 }I,  18,  212, 

213,  221,  663,  751,  752;  II, 

199.  245,  608 

Gh.  362,  sec.  7 1, 199.202 

Ch.  362,  sec.  8....I,2,  3,  6;i0, 

11,  12,  503,  838,  840 
Ch.  362,  sec.  9...  I,  223,  227, 

230,  231,  632 

Ch.  362,  sec.  10 II,  105,245 

Ch.  362,  sec.  11. ...I,  118,  593, 

632,  733,  734.  735,  736,  841 

Ch.  362,  sec.  12...  I,  41,  126, 

212,   227,   293,    327,   500, 

632,707,751,752;  11,119, 

245,   250,    767,   852;    IV. 

108;  V,  428;  VIII,  39,  478 

Ch.  362,  sec.  12rf I.  715 

Ch.  362,  sec.  14. .1,212,  228, 

500,  633,  751;  11.293 

Ch.  362,  sec.  15, 

I,  500,  707;  II,  119 

Ch.  362,  sec.  16 1,  500 


708 


Laws  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Gh.  362,  sec.  16 II,  120 

Ch.  362,  sec.  22. ..I,  6,  8,  9, 
10,110,212.213,303,633, 

751;  II,  120,  179,  348,  354 
Gh.  362,  sec.  23. .1,6,  9,  118, 

633,  634,  751,  752;  II,  348,  349 
Gh.  362,  sec.  24..  .1,  110,  111, 

303,  304;  II,  120 
Gh.  362,  sec.  25...  I,  118,  II,  120 

Gh.  362,  sec.  28 1,6 

Gh.  362,  sec.  31 1,  633,  752 

Gh.  362,  sec.  32....I,  302;  III, 

340,  341 
Gh.  362,  sec.  35. ..I,  108,110, 

111,  112,  114,  115,  117 

Gh.  362,  sec.  36 II,  758 

Gh.  386 I,   167;   II,  572 

Gh.  479 V,  211 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  Special 
Session  1905. 

Gh.  12,  sec.  1 1,  177 

Gh.  12,  sec.  74 1,  640 

Gh.  13,  sec.  3 1,  126,  293,  327 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1907. 

Gh.  102 XIII,  435 

Gh.  120 XIV,  800 

Gh.  189 XV,  471,  472 

Gh.  262 II,  572;  VI,  197 

Gh.  265 II,  572,. 

Gh.  348 X,353 

Gh.  352. ...11,  42,  44,  46,  432, 
436,  442,  445,  572;  IV,  120, 

427;  VIII,  67,  68,  69 

Gh.  454 Ill,  281;  V,  467, 

477,  638;  VII,  742 
Gh.  454,  sec.  1797-43....II,  375, 588 

Gh.  454,  sec.  1797-44 II,  585 

Gh.  454,  sec.  1797-48 II,  375 

Gh.  454,  sec.    1797-56 II, 

369,   370,   372,   374,    377, 

397,  437,  439,  441 

Gh.  464 II,  117 

Gh.  499 11,3,4,20,  113, 

327,  671,  679;  III,  69,  70, 
187,296.440,779;  IV,  151, 
540,  623,  624,  743,  745;  V, 
337,  401,  485,  488,  679, 
680;  VI,  44,  98,  324,  506, 
616,  718;  VII,  166,  188, 
381,  491,  609;  VIII,  142; 
IX,  436,  568;  X,  524,  548, 
549,  805;  XI,  456,  475; 
XII,  210,  418;  XIII,  30, 
65,    169,    453,    580,    710; 

XIV,  292,  294,  356,  681 

Ch.  499,  sec.  1 Ill,  149 

Gh.  499,  sec.  2 X,  552 

Ch.  499,  sec.  99 VIII,  148 

Gh.  499,  sec.  1797m-6 II,  110 

Gh.  499,  sec.  1797/n-15 II,  112 

Ch.  499,  sec.  1797/n-23 II,  632 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Gh.  499,  sec.  1797/n-49 II,  671 

Gh.  499,  sec.  1797/77-77 II,  679 

Gh.  499,  sec.  1797m-87....II, 

328,  331 

Gh.  499,  sec.  1797/n-89 II,  541 

Gh.  499,  sec.  1797/n-90 II,  544 

Gh.  499,  sec.  17/97/77-91 II, 

114,  115 
Gh.  499,sec.l797/7?-99....II,30,769 
Gh.  499,  sec.  1797/77-105  ...II, 

3,  105,  136,  538 
Gh.  575,  II,  264,  265,  266, 

269,  270,  271;  III,  346 

Gh.  576 II,  47,  53,  55,  57 

Gh.  576,  sec.  1753-3 II,  58 

Gh.582..V,439;VII,780;X,  11,12 
Gh.  .582,  sec.  8. ..II,  116,  117, 
128, 129,  133,  251,  300,  609,  763 

Ch.  595 II,  349 

Gh.  614 II,  543,  824,  851; 

IV.  393;  XV,  448 

Gh.  614,  sec.  1797^-2 II,  851 

Ch.  654 II,  337 

Gh.  665 X,  5^5,  548,  549 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  1909. 

Ch.  136 V,  439 

Ch.  213 VI.  92;  VIII,  261; 

XIII,  580 

Ch.  271 IV,  108,  110,196, 

205,  355;  VII,  780 

Ch.  355 V,  195;  XIII,  90 

Gh.  481 IV,,  237,  795;  V, 

727;   VI,    503,   564;    VII, 

145;  IX,  159;  XI,  75,  78 

Ch.  491 VII,  143 

Gh.  524 XI,  302 

Ch.  540....VI,  682,  683;  VIII, 

423;  XIV,  800 
Wisconsin  Laws  of  1911. 

Gh.  28 VIII,   249 

Ch.  160 XI,    134 

Gh.  191 VI,  684;  XIV,  800 

Gh.  193 XI,    75 

Ch.  233 XI,  161 

Ch.  302 IX,  68,  70,  72 

Ch.  302,  sec.  1 IX,  71 

Gh.  358... VII  I,  102,  104,  279, 

281;  XI,  638 

Gh.  366 XIII,    90 

Gh.  416. ..XII,  10,  43;  XIII,  596 

Gh.  483 VIII,  242,  246 

Ch.  546 XIV,  530,  531 

Gh.  591 XV,    472 

Gh.  640 XV,   438 

Gh.  652  ...X,  381,  382;  XIV, 

190,  192,  193,  201 

Sec.  1809y XI,  137 

Wisconsin  Laws  of  Special 
Session  1912. 
Ch.  17,  subsec.  2,  XIV,  190, 

191,  201 


Laws  Cited 


709 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Wisconsin  Laws  of  1913. 

Ch.   62 XIII,  270,   301,   306 

Ch.  66....XII,  240;  XIII,  370, 

373,  534;  XI,  707 

Ch.  69 XIII,  680 

Ch.  603 XIV,  129,344 

Ch.  610 XII,    745,    746; 

XIII,  166,  168,  437,  438, 
601,  631;  XIV,  131,  132, 
135,   398,   457,   458,   459, 

538,  569,  795,  803,  815 

Ch.  616 XIV,  342 

Ch.  755. ..XV,  714,  715,  722,  723 

Ch.   756 XIV,   140,   143 

United  States  Constitution. 
Sec.  1,  14th  Amend.,  XIV,  531 

Art.  1,  sec.  VIII 11,827 

Art.  1,  sec.  8,  subsec.  3. ...XIV,  532 
Art.  l,sec.  10. ...I,  665;X,  10, 

318;  XI,  4;  XIV,  531 
Art.  14,  Amendment  sec.  1... 
I,  346,  665;  X,  10,  318;  XI,  4 
United  States  Laws,  1887. 
Ch.  104,  sec  16  (as  amended, 
ch.  3591,  sec.  5,  Laws  of 

1906) XI,  702 

United  States  Act  of  Con- 
gress, Apr.  24,  1894. 

28  Stats.  64,  c.  64 Ill,  268 

United  States  Act  of  Con- 
gress, June  29,  1906. 

(Interstate  Commerce  Act 
as  amended.) 


Vol.  and  Pages 
34  Stats.  584,  c.  3591,  sec.  1 
(U.    S.    Comp.    St.    1901, 
Supp.  of  1907,  p.  892). ...Ill,  574 

Canadian  Railway  Act  of  1903. 
Sec.  193 II,  841 

Georgia  Civil  Code,  1910. 

Sec.  2711 XII,  231 

Sec.  2712 XII,  231 

Iowa  Constitution. 

Art.  1,  sec.  18 X,  554 

Iowa  Code. 

pp.  476,  477 X,  554 

Massachusetts  Laws. 

Ch.  Ill  and  112,  Supp.  to 
R.  S.  Stats.  1902-1906. ..II,  55 

Minnesota  Laws. 

Sec.  2872,  Revised  Laws  of 
1905 11,55 

New  York  Laws. 

R.  R.  Law  of  N.  Y.,  sec.  12, 
11,370 

New  York  Laws  of  1897. 

Ch.  754 11,371 

New  York  Laws  of  1905. 

Ch.  737,  sec.  11 IX,  557 

New  York  Laws  of  1907. 

Ch.  429 II,  57;  IX,  557 

Ch.  429,  sec.  55 II,  58 

Texas  Laws  of  1893. 

Ch.  50 II,  55 


CASES  CITED 


/ 


TABLE  OF  CASES   CITED. 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Abbott  V.  Railway  Co.,  1880, 

80,  N.  Y.  27 1,  635,  636 

Albright  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  & 

0.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  W.  R. 

C.  R.  763 XV,  407 

Alleged  Unlawful  Rates  and 
Practices,  etc.,  by  A.  T.  &  S. 
F.   R.    Co.   et   al.,    1897,   7 

1.  C.  R.  240 11,242 

Allen   V.    Clausen,    1902,    114 

Wis.  244 II,  687,  689 

V.    Sackrider,    1867,    37 

N.  Y.  341... I,  838 

Altenburg  v.  Grant,  1898,  85 
Fed.  345 II,  61 

Alter  et  al.  v.  City  of  Manito- 
woc, 1912,  10  W.  R.  C.  R. 
387... XIV,  691,  696,  698,  699,  700 

— — ■  V.  ,  1914,  14  W.  R. 

C.  R.  690...' XIV,  698,  699,  700 

Altoona  &  P.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  B.  C. 
R.  Co.  et  al.,  1896,  177, 
Penn.  St.  443 IV,  474 

American  Merchants'  Union 
Express  Co.  v.  Schier,  1870, 
55  111.  148 111,565 

V.  Wolf  et  al.,  1875,  79 

111.  430 Ill,  566 

American  Union  Express  Co.  v. 

Robinson,    1872,    72    Penn. 

St.  274 Ill,  566 

Ames  V.  U.  P.  R.  Co.,  1894, 

64  Fed.  165 V,  222 

Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co. 

V.    C.   &   E.   R.    Co.   et   al., 

1910,  19  I.  C.  C.  R.  592,  XII,  245 
Andarko    Cotton    Oil    Co.    v. 

A.  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  1910, 

20  1.  C.  C.  R.  43 

VII,  779;  XIV,  633 

Anderson  v.  W.  Chicago  St.  R. 

Co.,  1902,  65  N.  E.  717. ..I,  637 
Anderton  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 

S.  S.  M.  R.   Co!,   1913,   12 

W^  R.  C.  R.  506 XIV,  247 

V. ,  1914,  14  W.  R.  C. 

R.227 XIV,  471 

Appleton,  City  of,  v.  Appleton 

W.  Wks.  Co.,  1910,  5  W.  R. 

C.  R.  215,  VI,  99,  102,  120, 

122,  238;  VII,  83,  211;  X, 

123,  742 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Appleton  W.  Wks.  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road Comm.  of  Wis.,  1913, 
142N.  W.  476;  154  Wis.  121 
XII,  190,  662,  663 

V.  ,  1913,    154  Wis. 

121 'XV,  270,631 

Arena  &  R.  Tel.  Co.  v.  Troy 
&  H.  C.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914, 
13  W.  R.  C.  R.  763 XV,  316 

Arries  &  Packham  et  al.  v.  C. 
&  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7 
W.  R.  C.  R.  131 IX,  75 

Ashland  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., ' 
1900,  105  Wis.  398 VIII,  674 

V.  Maciejewski,  1909,  140 

Wis.  642 VIII,  696 

,  City  of,  V.  Ashland  W. 


Co.,  1909,  4  W.R.  C.  R.  273 

V,  66,  275,  493,   577,   578; 

VI,  82,  94,  95,  122;  VII,  88- 
89,    310,    311,    312-319;   X, 

116;  XIV,  2,  27,  33,  60 
-,  City  of,  V.  Wheeler,  1894, 


88  Wis.  607 II,  686;  IV,  302 

Aspinwall  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 

Co.,  1877,  41  Wis.  474. ..Ill,  81 
Associated     Jobbers     of     Los 

Angeles  v.  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  R. 

Co.,   1910,   18   I.   C.   C.   R. 

310 XIV,.273 

Atchison  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  v. 

D.  &  N.   O.  R.   Co.,   1884, 

llOU.  S.  667 : IV,  473 

V.  I.  C.  C.  1911,  188  Fed. 

229 XIV,  273,  274 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  v.  N.  C. 

Corp.    Comm.,    1907,    206, 

U.  S.  1 1,  616;  XV,  603 

V.   Wharton,    1907,   207. 

U.  S.  336 II,  626;  IV,  317 

Attorney-General  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1874, 
35  Wis.  425 IV,  304 

V.  Eau  Claire,  1875,  37 

Wis.  400 „ 1,642 

V. et  al.,   1875,    37 

Wis.  400 XV,  787 

ex.  rel.  Askew  v.  Smith, 


1901,  109  Wis.  541. 

II,  689;  IV,  349 
—  V.  Erie  etc.  R.  Co.,  1884, 
20N.  W.  696 1,638 


712 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Attorney-General  v.   Railroad 

Cos.,  1874,  35  Wis.  425 

I,  77,  325,  331 
V.  W.  W.  R.  Co.,  1874, 

36  Wis.  466 1,  638,  751 

Aurora  W.  Co.  v.  Aurora,  1895, 

129  Mo.  540 VIII,  679 

Austin   V.    Burgess,    1874,    36 

Wis.  190 II,  118 

Avery  v.  Vermont  Elec.  Co.  et 

al.,  1903,  75Vt.235 XV,  790 

Avinger  v.  S.  C.  R.  Co.,  1888, 

35    Am.    &    E.    R.    Cases, 

(O.  S.)  519 .....I,  758,  763 

Ayers  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1888,  71  W^is.  372...,. XIV,  90 

Badger   Co.   v.   M.   St.   P.   & 

S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911, 

8  W^  R.  C.  R.  125 XI,  434 

Bald  Eagle  V.  R.  Co.  v.  N.  V.  R. 

Co.,  1895, 171  Pa.  St.  284  .II,  847 
Baldwin  v.  American  Express 

Co.,  1859,  23  111.  197,  198.... 

Ill,  562,  566 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  etc.  Ry.  v. 

Voigt,    1900,    176    U.    S. 

498 XV,  798 

Baltimore    &    O.    R.    Co.    v. 

Walker,  1888,  45  O.  St.  577 

II,  377 

Bank  of  Middlebury  v.  R.  & 

W.  R.  R.  Co.,  1858,  30  Vt. 

159 II,  587 

Barker  &  Stewart  Lbr.  Co.  v. 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1913, 

11  W.  R.  C.  R.  537..XIII,  378,  379 
Barnes  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 

Co.  etal.,  1910,4W.  R.  C.  R 

478. ..IV,  767;  V,  730;  VIII,  684 
Barney  v.  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  Co. 

et  al.,  1910,  4  W.  R.  G.  R. 

775 V,292' 

V.  Oyster  Bay  and  Hunt- 
ington Steamboat  Co.,  1876, 

67  N.  Y.  301 IV,  350 

Bartlett  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1897,  96  Wis.  335 

II,  572;  IV,  401,  794 

Barton  v.   Barber,    1881,    104 

U.  S.  126 :.. .1,638 

Bassett  v.   A.   C.   &  M.   Co., 

1905,  88  S.  W.  318.. I,  764 

Bates  V.  Relyea  et  al.,   1840, 

'       23  W^end.  (N.  Y.)  336 IV,  63 

Battis  V.  Hamlin,  1868,  22  Wis. 

669 1,  188 

Baxendale  v.   G.  W.   R.   Co., 

1858,  94  E.  C.  L.  308 II,  242 

Bayard    v.    Smith,    1837,    17 

Wend.  88 II,  122 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Beasley    v.    Texas    &    Pacific 

R.  Co.,  1903,  191  U.  S.  492 

XV,  798 

Beauchamp  v.  I.  &  G.  N.  R.  Co. 

1882,  56  Tex.  239 1,  229 

Beaver  Dam  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St. 

P.  M.  &  O.  R.   Co.,   1908, 

2  W^  R.  C.  R.  700  ...III,  56, 

64,  601;  XI,  64;  XIV,  627 
Beaver   Dam   Malleable   Iron 

Works  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 

Co.,   1908,  2  W.  R.   C.  R. 

703. ..HI,  518,  597;  IV,  172, 

174,  177;  VII,  18 
Bedford-Bowling  Green  Stone 

Co.  V.  Oman,  1903,  31  Am. 

&  E.  R.  Cases,  249 1,  759 

Belmont  &  Pleasant  View  Tel. 

Co.  et  al.  V.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  & 

La  Fayette  County  Tel.  Co., 

1914,  15  W^  R.  C.  R.  92   .XV,  447 
Beloit,  City  of,  v.  Beloit  W.  G. 

&  El.  Co.,  1911,  7  W.  R.  C. 

R.  187..X,  116,  750,  763;  XIV,  70 
Beloit  W.  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.  City 

of   Beloit,    1910,    5   W.    R. 

C.  R.  617 

VII,  305-307,  689-690;  XII,  270 
Belt  R.   Co.  of  C.  V.  United 

States,   1909,   168  Fed.  542, 

IV,  474 

Bennett   v.    Northern    Pacific 

Express  Co.,  1885,  12  Ore. 

49 HI,  566 

Berend  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.,  1909, 

4  W.  R.  C.  R.  150.  V,  692; 

X,  561:  XI,  483;  XIII,  522, 

416,  401 
Berger   v.    Berger,    1899,    104 

W^is.  282 1,  189 

Bergeron  v.   Hobbs,   1897,   96 

W^is.  647 ......II,  689;  IV,  349 

Bigelow  v.  West  Wis.  R.  Co., 

1871,  27  Wis.  478 HI,  80 

Birmingham  R.  Co.  v.  Jacobs, 

1890,  92  Ala.  187 1,184 

Black  River  Improvement  Co. 

V.  Holway  et  al.,   1894,  87 

Wis.  584 IV,  304 

Blair  v.  M.  &  P.  D.  V.  R.  Co., 

1866,  20  Wis.  254 1,  170 

Blanchard  v.   Isaacs,   1848,  3 

Barb.  (N.Y.)  388 HI,  567 

Block-Pollak   Iron    Co.   v.    C. 

M.  &  St.  P.  R.   Co.,  1911, 

6  W.  R.  C.  R.  205 VI,  548 

Blodgett  Mining  Co.  v.  C.  & 

N.    W.    R.    Co.,    1912,    10 

W.  R.  C.  R.  377 XIII,  784 

Blondell    v.    Consolidated    G. 

Co.,  1899,  89  Md.  732 HI,  143 


Cases  Cited 


713 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Board  etc.  v.  La  Fayette  etc. 

R.  Co.,  1875,  50  Ind.  85... 

I,  635,  760 

Boise    City    I.    &    L.    Go.    v. 

Clark,  1904,  131  Fed.  415..V,  225 
Boothby  v.   G.   T.    R.,    1890, 

34  Atl.  157 1,  230 

Bowar  et  al.  v.  C.  &  S.  C.  R. 

Co.   et   al.,   1911,   6  W.   R. 

G.  R.  693 XIII,  744 

Bowe  V.  G.  Lumber  Co.,  1890, 

86  Ga.  17 II,  587 

Bowker  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M. 

R.  Co.,  1908,  2  W.  R.  C.  R. 

514 XV,586 

Brass  v.  North  Dakota,  1894, 

153,  U.S.  391 1,640,645 

Brightman    v.    Kirner,    1867, 

22  Wis.  54 1,  187 

Brinkman  v.  Jones,   1878,  44 

Wis.  498 V,  112 

Bristol    V.    Bristol    W.    Wks., 

1901,  23  R.  I.  274 Ill,  85 

Brittingham  &  Young  Co.  v. 

C.  M.  &St.  P.  R.  Co.  etal.,- 

1911,  6  W.R.  C.  R.  528 

XIV,  719 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M. 

R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  4  W.  R. 

C.  R.  772 XI,  64 

Britton   Cooperage  Co.  v.   C. 

M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 

3  W.  R.  C.  R.  386. ..Ill,  386,  390 

Brock  et  al.  v.  Hishen  et  al., 

1876,  40  Wis.  674 X,  550 

Brooke   v.    Mitchell,    1840,    6 

Mees.  &W.  473 1,  116 

Brown  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1899,  102  Wis.  137 Ill,  564 

Brown  v.  Gerald  et  al.,  1905, 

100  Me.  351 XV,  788 

Brown  v.  Janesville  St.  Ry.  Co. 

1910,   4  W.   R.    C.   R.   757 

V,  422,  423;  XIV,  522;  XV, 

659,  820 
Brown  v.  Winnisimet  Co.;  1865 

93  Mass.  326 IV,  352 

Brown  Bros.  Lbr.  Co.  v.  M.  St. 

P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1910,   5  W.   R.    C.   R.   647 

XII    133 
Brownell ' v.' ' o'.'c'.'  R. ' R.  1895,' 

164  Mass.  29 1,  637 

Brunswick  &  Topsham  W. 
Dist.  V.  Maine  W.  Co.,  1904, 
99Me.  371....III,  87;  V,223, 

224,  278;  VI,  120 

Brush  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Co.  v. 
Montgomery,  1896,  114  Ala. 
433 ; : VIII,  679 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Brymer  et  al.  v.  Butler  W.  Co., 

1897,   179  Pa.  231 

V,  220;  VIII,  26 

Budd  V.  New  York,  1892,  143 

U.  S.  517 

I,  336,  640,  642,  644,  645 

Buell  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1907,    1   W.   R.    C.   R.   324 

1,509,510,511,534,  540, 

576,  582,  708;  III,  332,  814; 

V,  309,  327; X,  167 
Buergin  et  al.  v.  So.  W'rs.  Ry. 

Co.,  1913,  11  W.  R.  C.  R. 

762 XII,  167 

Buffalo    Barb    Wire     Co.    v. 

PhilHps,  1886,  67  Wis.  129, 

132 VIII,  676 

Buffalo    County   Tel.    Co.    v. 

Turner,    1908,    118    N.    W. 

(Neb.)  1064 IV,  157 

Bullard  v.  American  Express 

Co.,    1895,    107    Mich.    695 

Ill,  567 

Burkholder  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R. 

Co.,   1908,  2  W.  R.   C.  R. 

765 ...IV,316 

Burlington  C.  R.  &  N.  R.  Co. 

V.  Dey,  1891,  48  N.  W.  98... 

1,81;  II,  122, 

Burlington    W.    Wks.    Co.    v.  • 

Burlington,    1890,   43   Kan. 

725 .....VIII,  679 

Burns  v.  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co., 

1907,  101  Minn.  363,  365. IV,  353 
Burrill  v.  I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912, 

9  W\  R.  C.  R.  319 X,  576 

Bushnell  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 

Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  532 

II,  346,  627;  III,  605 

Russian  v.  Milwaukee,  L.  S.  & 

W.   R.    Co.,    1882,   56  Wis. 

325 ....XII,414 

Butchers  &  Drovers  S.  Y.  Co. 

V.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  1895, 

67  Fed.  37 1,636 

Butterfield  &  Stranahan,  1904, 

192U.  S.  470 1,337 

Caledonia,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  M. 
El.  R.  Co.,  1913,  11  W.  R. 
C.  R.  564,  567 XII,  386 

Callen,  Kames  Jr.,  et  al.  v.  C. 
M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1914, 
13W.  R.  C.fl.  732 XIV,  581 

Calumet  Service  Co.  v.  Chilton 
1912,    148    Wis.    334;    135, 

N.  W.  131 

X,  611;  XV,  267.  630,  634 

Cambridge  Valley  Bank  v. 
Delano,  1872,  48  N.  Y.  326 
V,  112 


714 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Capital  Citv  Gas  Light  Co.  v. 

Des  Moines,  1896,  72  Fed. 

829 V,  225,  278 

Capital  City  Gas  Co.  v.  C.  V. 

R.  Co.,  1905,  11  I.  C.  C.  R. 

104 ..II,  196 

Capital  Gas  &  Elec.  Lt.  Co.  v. 

Gaines,  1899,  20  Ky.  L.  R. 

1464 Ill,  143 

Carr  v.  N.  P.  R.   Co.,   1901, 

91.  C.  C.R.  12 1,121 

Carstens      Packing      Co.      v. 

Oregon  S.  L.  R,  Co.  et  al., 

1909,  17  I.  C.  C.  R.  324..XII,  245 
Castle  V.  B.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  1899, 

8  I.  C.  C.  R.  333 II,  196 

Caswell  V.  Boston  E.  R.  Co., 

1906,  190  Mass.  527 XV,  662 

Cauble  v.  Craig,  1912,  94  Mo. 

App.  675 XV,  628 

Cawker  v.  Meyer,   1911,   147 

Wis.  320 XV,  789 

Cedar  Rapids  Gaslight  Co.  v. 

Cedar  Rapids  et  al.,   1909, 

120  N.  W.  (la.)  966 

IV,  158,  307;  V,  229 

Cedar  Rapids  W.  Co.  v.  Cedar 

Rapids,  1902,  118  Iowa,  234 

111,87 

Central  Bank  v.  Worcester  H. 

R.  Co.,  1866,  13  Allen  105. 1,  184 
Central  El.  Co.  v.  Street  Ltg. 

Dis.  1904,  71  N.  J.  L.  403... 

VIII,  679 

Central    New    York    Tel.    & 

Teleg.  Co.  v.  Averill,  1907, 

105  N.  Y.  Supp.  378 II,  847 

Central  P.  R.  Co.  v.  California, 

1896,  162  U.  S.  91 XV,  628 

Central   Stock   Yards    Co.   v. 

L.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1902,  118 

Fed.  Rep.  113. ..II,  294;  VI,  71 
Central  Trans.  Co.  v.  Pullman 

Gar  Co.,  1891,  139  U.  S.  24 

I,  636 

Central  Yellow  Pine  Assn.  v. 

V.   S.   &  P.   R.    Co.,    1904, 

10  I.  C.  C.  R.  193 

I,  214;  II,  242 

Chamber  of  Comm.  of  Milw.  v. 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.   Co.  et  al., 

1909,  4  W\  R.  C.  R.  80  ...IV,  782 
Chapman  v.  M.  R.  &  L.  E.  R. 

Co.,  1856,  60  St.  Rep.  119. 1,  762 
Chapman  Valve  Mfg.   Co.  v. 

Oconto    Water    Co.,    1895, 

89  Wis.  264 11,688 

Charley  v.  Pothoff,  1903,  118 

Wis.  258 VIII,  675 

Cheetham  v.  McCormick,  1896 

178  Pa.  St.  186 1,  184 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Cherokee  Nation  v.  K.  R.  Co., 

1890,  135  U.  S.  641. ...I    78,  335 
Cherokee,  Town  of,  v.  S.  C.  & 

I.  F.  Town  Lot  &  Land  Co., 

1879,    52    Iowa   279;   3    N. 

W.42 X,  554 

Chicago   &   Alton   R.    Co.   v. 

Sufferin;  1889,  21  N.  E.  824 

I,  638 

Chicago   &   G.   T.   R.    Co.   v. 

Wellman,  1892,  143  U..S. 

339 ...I,  336,  345 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.   Co.  v. 

Dey,  1888,  35  Fed.  866 

I,   337,   708;   II,   122;  VIII,   25 
V.  Morehouse,   1901,  112 

Wis 1,755;  11,439;  111,50; 

IV,  400,  793 
V.  O.  A.  &  B.  W.  R.  Co., 


1900, 107  Wis.  .192 1,754,840 

V.  State,  1906,  128  Wis. 


553 Ill,  78;  XV,  629 

Chicago  Dock  &  Canal  Co.  v. 
Garrity    et    al.,    1885,    115 

111..  155 111,49 

Chicago   B.   &   Q.   R.    Co.   v. 
Chicago,  1897,  166  U.  S.  266 

1,336 

V.  People,   1875,  77  111. 

443 II,  122 

V.  Railroad  Commission, 


1913,  152  Wis.  654. 
XIV,  448,   584,  585;  XV,  603 
Chicago,  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co. 
V.    Brd.    of    Supervisors    of 
Crawford  Co.,  1880,  48  Wis. 
666 : 1,625 

V.    City   of   Milwaukee, 

1897,  97  Wis.  418 II,  381 

V.  Janesville,   1908,   137 

Wis.  7 XV,  630 

V.   Minnesota,   1890,   10 


Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  462 1,  5 

—  V. ,134  U.S.  418 

I,  232,  336,  337;  IV,  762 

V.  Railroad  Comm.,  1914, 


157   Wis.   287;   146   N.   W. 

1129 XIV,  584 

V.  Tompkins,  1900,  176, 


U.  S.  167 1,  232,  340 

Chicago  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  Co.  v. 
C.  &  A.  R.  Co.,  1890,  3  I.  C. 
C.  R.  462 II,  242 

Chicago,  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co. 
V.  Bayfield  Co.,  1894,  87 
Wis.  189 1,  625,  647 

V.  Becker,  1888,  35  Fed. 

883 VIII,  25 

V.    Douglas    Co.,    1904, 

122  Wis.  273 1,  626,  627,  628 


Cases  Cited 


715 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Chicago,   St.  P.  M.   &    O.  R. 

Grossing  near  Columbia  Sta-  " 

tion.  In  re,  1912,  8   \V.  R. 

C.  R.  516 VIII,  733 

Chromaster  v.  M.  N.  R.  Co., 

1912,  8  W.  R.  C.  R.  734. IX,  534 
Church  V.  M.  &  St.  L.  R.  Co., 

1901,  14  S.  Dak.  433 Ill, 

56,  571;  IV,  777;  VI,  435 
Cincinnati  N.  0.  &  T.  R.  Co. 

V.    Int.    Com.    Com.,    1896, 

162,  U.  S.  184 

I,  85,  216,  221;  11,243,244 
Citizens  Tel.  Co.  of  Eau  Claire 

V.  Railroad  Comm.  of  Wis. 

1914,  157  Wis.  498;  146  N. 

W.  798 XIV,  570 

City  of  Boscobel  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  W.  R. 

C.  R.  423 XV,  297 

City  of  Ft.  Atkinson  v.  C.  & 

N.    W.    R.    Co.,    1913,    13 

W.  R.  C.  R.  69 XV,  250 

City  of  Green  Bay  v.  Green 

Bay  Water  Co.,  11  W.  R.  C. 

R.  236 XV,  85 

City  of  Janesville  v.  Rockford 

&  Interurban  R.  Co.,  1912, 

9  W.  R.  C.  R.  502 XV,  661 

V.  Janesville  Water  Co., 

1911,  7  W.R.  C.  R.  628 

XV,  117,  690,  691,  692 

City  of  La  Crosse  v.  La  Crosse 

Gas  &   El.    Co.,    1911,    145 

Wis.  408 XV,  267 

City  of  Madison  v.   Madison 

G.  &  E.  Co.,  1906, 108  N.  W. 

65 1,  302 

City  of  Manitowoc  v.  Manito- 
woc  &   Northern   Tr.    Co., 

1911,  145  Wis.  13.. ..XV,  800,  814 
City  of  Marinette  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  W.  R. 

C.  R.  455 XV,  200 

City  of  Milwaukee  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.   Co.  et  al.,   1913, 

11  W.  R.  C.  R.  350 XV,  766 

V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co., 

1912,  10  W.  R.  C.  R.  1... 
XV,  726,  728,  729,  730-735, 
737,  740,  743,  745,  747,  748, 

750,  751 
City  of  Rhinelander  v.  M.  St. 

P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912, 

8  W.  R.  C.  R.  719 XV,  617 

Cladwell  v.  Wilson,  1897,  121 

N.  C.  423 1,  337 

Clark  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1907,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  590 

IX,  72;  XII,  187 

Clark  V.  Janesville,   1860,   10 

Wis.  165 1,  187 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Clark  V.  Nash,  1905,  198  U.  S. 

361 XV,  787 

Clark  V.  0.  &  S.  W.  R.  Co., 

1876,  4  Neb.  458 1,  761 

Cleveland  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  Co. 

V.  Illinois,  1900,  177  U.  S. 

514 1,  320,  518 

Cochrane  -Co.  v.  G.  M.  &  St. 

P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  W.  R.  C.  R 

1....III,  33,  34,  39,  336;  VI, 

636;  VII,  6 
Coe  V.  East  &  W.  R.  Co.,  1892, 

52  Fed.  531 11,61 

Cole  V.  D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co., 

1899, 104  Wis.  460 1, 173 

Columbus  R.  Co.  v.  Kitchens, 

1914,  83  S.  E.  529 XV,  613 

Columbus   S.    &   H.    R.    Co., 

Appeals,  1901,  109  Fed.  177 

11,61 

Commercial  Club  of  Omaha  y. 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  Co.,  1896, 

6  1.  C.  C.  R.  677 11,242 

V.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  et 

al.,  1907,  12  I.  C.  C.  R.  495 
VI,  71 

Commonwealth   v.  F.  R.  Co, 

1858,  12  Gray  180 

I,  755;  IV,  764 

V.  Louisville  &  Nashville 

R.  Co.,  1882,  80  Ky.  291 
VIII,  529 

Comp'ton  v.  Mitton,  1 830,  1 2 

N.  J.  L.  70 1,116 

Conkey  v.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1872,  31  Wis.  619 IV,  474 

Conner   v.    Marshfield,    1906, 

128  Wis.  280 X,  549 

Connor  Land  &  Lbr.   Co.  v. 

C.  &  N.  W.  R.   Co.,   1911, 

7  W.  R.  C.  R.  774 VIII, 

476,  698;  XI,  64;  XIV,  627 
V. ,  1911,  8  W.  R.  C. 

R.  697 XI,  64 

Consolidated  G.  Co.  v.  City  of 

N.  Y.  1907,  157  Fed.  Rep. 

849 Ill,  85;  V,  225;  X,  116 

Continental     Trust     Co.     v. 

Toledo  St.  L  &  K.  C.  R.  Co., 

1897,  82  Fed.  642;  86  Fed. 

929 II,   61 

Cook  V.  Milw.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1874,  36  Wis.  45 1,  635 

Coon  et  al.  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.. 

1907,  1  W.R.  C.  R.  724 

II,  1,  93,  94,  355 

Corey  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M. 

R.  Co.,  1906,  1  W.  R.  C.  R. 

191 1,  537;  IV,  117 

Cotting  V.  Kansas    City  S.  Y. 
Go.  1901,  183  U.  S.  79.. I,  640,  645 


716 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Cotton  et  al.  v.  The  Co. 
Comms.  of  Leon  Co.  et  al., 

1856,  6Fla.  610 

Ill,  286;  XIII,  415,  416 

Courteen  v.  Kanawha  Dis- 
patch et  al.,  1901,  110  Wis. 
610 IV,  474,  475 

Covington  &  Cincinnati  Bridge 
Co.  V.  Kentucky,  1894,  154 
U.  S.  204 Ill,  572 

Covington  &  L.  T.  R.  Co.  v. 
Sanford,  1896,  164  U.  S.  578 
I,  233,  336,  338;  IV,  62,  762; 

V,  222;  XV,  820 

Covington  S.  Y.  Co.  v,  Keith, 

1891,  139  U.  S.  128 • 

I,  640;  XIV,  276 

Craig  V.  Twomey,  1860,  80 
Mass.  (14  Gray)  486 II,  587 

Crary  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co., 
1902,  53  Atl.  363  &  29 
American  &  English  R. 
Cases-119 XV,  604 

Creston  Waterworks  Co.  v. 
Creston,  1897,  101  la.  687 
VIII,  679 

Crews  V.  Richmond  &  D.  R. 
Co.,  1888,  1  I.  C.  C.  R.  425 
II,  241,  248 

Cruttwell  V.  Lye,  1810,  17 
Ves.  Jr.  335 111,85 

Cumberland  Fruit  Pkg.  Co.  v. 
C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 
1914,  14  W.  R.  C.  R.  267... 
XV,  158 

Cummings  v.  St.  Louis,  1886, 
90  Mo.  259 Ill,  49 

Cunningham  et  al.  v.  Chip- 
pewa  Falls   W.    &   L.    Co., 

1910,  5  W.R.  C.  R.  302 

VII,  242;  X,  123,  167,  742 

Curtiss  &  Withee  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Owen  Tel.  Co.,  1914,  13 
W.  R.  C.  R.  538 XIV,  420 

Cusick,  et  al.  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  & 
L.  Co.  et  al.  1912,  10  W.  R. 
C.  R.  314.. ..X,  159,  347,  363, 

366;  XV,  .731,  748,  750,  751 

Daniels  v.  Hurt,  1875,  118 
Mass.   543 1,  636 

Daniel  Shaw  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St. 
P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2 
W.R.  C.  R.  342 111,601 

Dartmouth  College  v.  Wood- 
ward, 1819,  4  Wheat.  518... 
I,  335;  V,  282 

Davis  v.  City  of  Appleton, 
1901,  109  Wis.  580 VIII,  674 

Dayton  v.  Quigley  et  al.,  1878, 
29N.J.  Eq.  77 IV,  159 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Delaware  and  A.  Teleg.  &  Tel. 

Co.  V.  State,  1892,  50  Fed. 

677 V,  423 

Depaw  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1912,  151  Wis.  109 XIII,  414 

Detroit,  Ft.  W.  &  B.  I.  R.  Co. 

V.  Comm.  of  Railroads,  1901, 

127  Mich.,  219;   189  U.  S. 

383 II,  382 

Detroit,  G.  H.  &  M.  R.  Co.  v. 

I.  C.  C,  1896,  74  Fed.  803.... 

V,  425 

Diamond  G.  Co.  v.  U.  S.  G. 

Co.,  1903,  187  U.  S.  611. .XV,  603 
Diamond  Mills  v.  B.  &  M.  R. 

Co.,  1902,  9  I.  C.  C.  R.  311 

II,  241 

Dick   et   al.    v.    Madison   W. 

Comm.,  1910,  5  W.  R.  C.  R. 

731,  VI,  94;  VII,  310;  VIII, 

46-47;  X,  763;  XI,  285 
Dinwoodie  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 

R.  Co.,  1887,  70  Wis.  160. ...I,  171 
Dolan  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1903,  118  Wis.  362 1,  640 

Donald  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1911,  8  W.  R.  C.  R.  320 X,  509 

Doty  et  al.  v.   Strong,   1843, 

1  Pin.  313 XII,  231 

Doi'glas   et    al.    v.    Equitable 

El.  Lt.  Co.,  1913,  12  W\  R. 

C.  R.  337 

XIV,  381,  382,  384,  386,  389 

Dow  V.  Biedelman,  1888,  125 

U.S.  680 1,336 

Dowling    V.    Lancashire    Ins. 

Co.,  1896,  92  Wis.  63 1,  708 

Driver  v.   Western  Union  R. 

Co.,  1873,  32  Wis.  569. ..Ill,  81 
Druecker  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  594..IIIi  591 
Duluth-Superior    Milling    Co. 

et  al.  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910, 

5  W.  R.  C.  R.  598 VII,  461 

V. ,  1910.  6  W.  R.  C. 

R.  70 VII,  461 

Dyer  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1908,  2  W.  R.  C.  R.  621 
III,  605;  IV,  126,  316,  317; 

VI,  11,  12,  623;  VIII,  246 

Eastern  R.  Co.  of  Minn.  v. 
McCord,  1908,  136  Wis.  249 
V,  475;  VII,  406 

Ebenezer  Tel.  Co.  v.  M.  L.  H. 

6  T.  Co.,  1915,  15  W.  R.  C. 

R.  619 XV,  625 

Eden  Independent  Lime  & 
Stone  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  4  W.  R.  C.  R.  233 
VII,    145,  146 


Cases  Cited 


717 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Eden     Independent    l.ime    & 

Stone  Co.  v.  G.  &  N.  W.  R. 

Co.,    1910,   5  W.  R.   G.   R. 

110 VII,   146 

Edgerton  v.  Brownlow,  1853, 

4  H.  of  L.  Cases  1 XV,  798 

Edw.  Hines  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St. 

P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2 

W.  R.  G.  R.  390 XII,  245 

V.  G.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R. 

Co.,  1911,  7  W.  R.  C.  R.  14 

XII.  193 

Eingartner  v.    111.    Steel    Co., 

1899,  103  Wis.  373 II,  124 

Elbertson  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0. 

R.  Co.,  1908,  2  W.  R.  G.  R. 

593  VI,  443 

Elver  V.  So.'  Wis.  R.  Co.',"i912,' 

9  W.  R.  G.  R.  1 XI,  68,  70,  71 

V. ,  11  W.  R.  C.  R.  67 

XI,  766;  XIV,  598 

Elyton  Land  Co.  v.  Birming- 
ham W.  &  E.  Co.,  1891,  9 

'•    So.  Rep.  129 II,  61 

Engesether  v.  G.  St.  M.   &  0. 

R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1912,  8  W.  R. 

G.  R.  504 XI,  448;  XII,  133 

Erb  V.  Morasch,  1900,  177  U. 

S.584 1,  646 

Erie  v.  Erie  G.  &  Mineral  Co., 

1908,  78  Kan.  348,  354.. VIII,     25 
Express  Cases,  1886,  117  U.  S. 

1 II,   824;   III,  349,   562,   567 

Ewer  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R. 

Co.,  1909,  4  W.R.  C.  R.  331 

XIV,  756 

Farmer  v.  D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R.  Co., 
1907,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  316...  I, 
518,  618,  661;  II,  626;  IV, 

125,  318;  VI,  12;  XIV,  249 

Farmers'  Store  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P. 
M.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  W. 
R.  G.  R.  42 VI,  197 

Farwell  Go.  v.  W^olf,  1897,  96 
Wis.   10 II,  688;  IV,  349 

Fay  V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R. 
Co.,1907,131Wis.639..XIII,  414 

Fergot  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1909,4W.R.C.R.248..VIII,  547 

Ferguson  v.  Metropolitan  Gas- 

"  light  Co.,  1868,  37  How.  Pr. 
(N.Y.)189.  Ill,  143 

Ferguson  v.  Sherman,  1897, 
116  Gal.  169 1,  183 

Ferguson  Saw  Mill  Go.  v.  St. 
L.  I.  M.  &  S.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
18  1.  C.  C.  R.  396 XV,  522 

FideHtv  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Doug- 
las, 1898,  104  Iowa  532;  73 
N.  W.  1039 1,  181 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Field  V.  Clark,  1892,  143  U.  S. 

649 1,  337 

Fielder  v.  M.  K.  &  T.  R.  Co., 

1897,  42  S.  W.  362 VI,     71 

First  Ave.  Land  Go.  v.  Parker, 

1901,  111  Wis.  1 II,     60 

Flanagan  v.  G.  W.  R.  Co.,  1868 

L.  R.  7  Eq.  116 IV,  352 

Flavion  v.  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 

Co.,  1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  385 

Ill,  390 

Fleming   v.    Montgomery   Lt. 

Co.,  1892, 100  Ala.  657.. ..Ill,  144 
Flint  &  P.  M.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  D. 

&  B.   C.   R.   Co.,   1887,  64 

Mich.  350 II,  374 

Fond   du   Lac   Water    Co.   v. 

Fond  du  Lac,  1892,  82  Wis. 

322 XV,  629 

Forrest  v.  Manchester,  S.  &  L. 

R.   Co.,   1861,  30  Beav.  40 

: IV,  352 

Fountain-Campbell  Lbr.  Go.  v. 

G.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co., 

1908.  3  W\R.  G.  R.  63 Ill, 

67, 388, 390, 601;  IV,  174, 177,  330 
Fowler  V.  Farmer's  L.  &  T.  Co., 

1866,  21  Wis.  78 1,  171 

Freeman  v.  M.  <fe  St.  L.  R.  Co., 

1881,  28  Minn.  443 1,  635 

French  v.  Edwards,  1871,  80 

U.  S.  511 XV,  264 

Franke  Grain  Go.  v.  G.  &  N. 

W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  W.  R. 

G.  R.  182 Ill,  451 

Fullmer  v.  Wausau  St.  R.  Co., 

1909,  3  W.  R.  G.  R.  520..XV,  247 
V.  ,  5  W.  R.  C.  R. 

114 XV,  247 

Funk  V.  St.  P.  G.  R.  Co.,  1895, ' 
61  Minn.  435;  63  N.  W.  1099 
I,  179,  180 

Gablowsky  et  al.  v.  G.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  et  al.  1912,  8  W.  R. 

C.  R.  544 IX,  487;  XIV,  704 

Galena  W.  Go.  v.  City  of  Ga- 
lena, 1906,  87  Pac.  735.  VI,  120 
Gambrill  v.  Schooley,  1901,  93 

Md.  48 .....I,  116 

Gates  V.  B.  &  N.  Y.  A.  L.  R. 

Co.,  1885,  53  Conn.  333 

I,  636,  754 

Geilfuss  V.  Gorrigan,  95  Wis. 

651 XII,  558 

Geneva,    City   of,   v.    Geneva 

Tel.    Co.,    1899,    62   N.    Y. 

Suppl.  172 XI,  305,  306 

Georgia   R.    R.   &   B.    Co.   v. 

Commissioners    etc.,     1883, 

70  Ga.  694 1,  337 


718 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Gibbons    v.    Ogden,    1824,    9 

Wheat.  1 1,  323 

Gibbs  V.  Baltimore  Gas  Co., 

1889,  130  U.  S.  396 1,  636 

Gilbert  v.   Dutruit,    1895,   91 

Wis.  661 I,  188 

Gilbertson  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  1912,  10  W.  R.  C. 

R.  495 XI,  604 

Gillett  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 

Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  689 

V,  614;  X,  339;  XV,  345 

V.  ,  1912,  10  W.  R. 

C.   R.   337. ..X,   345;  XIII,  478 
Gillett,  town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R. 

535 XIV,  799 

Gladson  v.   Minnesota,    1897,  - 

166  U.  S.  427.. ..I,  320,  518,  646 
Glaessner   v.    Anheuser-Busch 

Brwg.  Ass'n  et  al.,   1890,  100 

Mo.  508 ;.- Ill,     49 

Gleason  v.   Goodrich  Transp. 

Co.  1873,  32  Wis.  98  ...VIII,  117 
Gloucester  W.  Supply  Co.  v. 

Gloucester,  1901,  179  Mass. 

365 Ill,    86;    VI,  120 

Goodwillie  Bros.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  1910,  4  W.  R.  C.  R. 

461 IV,    463;   XlV,  719 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1910,   4  W.   R.    C.   R.   463 

• XIV,  719 

Graham  &  Ward  v.  M.  D.  &  S. 

R.   Co.,  1904,   120  Ga.  757 

IV,  475 

Grand    Haven,     City    of,    v. 

Grand  Haven  W.  Wks.,  1899 

119  Mich.  652 IV,  297 

Grand   T.    R.    Co.    v.    Mich. 

Railroad  Commission,  1913, 

231  U.  S.  457 XIV,  284 

Green  Bav,  City  of,  v.  Brauns, 

1880,  50  Wis.  204 V,  490 

V.   Green  Bay  W.    Co., 

1913,  11  W.  R.   C.  R.  236 
XII,  458,  459,  735,  737,  740, 

742;  XIII,  164 
Greenwood    v.    Freight    Co., 

1881,  105  U.  S.  13 ..IV,  303 

Greer  v.  Arlington  Mfg.  Co.,  % 

1899,  43  Atl.  609 II,  115 

Grosse  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1895,  91  Wis.  482 I,  172 

Gulf  C.  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  V. 
Helfey,  1895,  158  U.  S.  98  I, 
305;  II,   128;  III,  56,  571; 

IV,  777;  VI,  435 

V.  Texas,  1907,  204  U.  S. 

403 Ill,  341;  VI,  70,  71 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Gulliver  v.  Adams  Express  Co., 

1865,38  111.  503 111,565 

Gund   Brewing   Co.   v.    C.   & 

N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  W.  R. 

C.  R.  190 XIV,  756 

Gyger  v.  P.  C.  R.  R.  Co.,  1890, 

136  Penn.  St.  96 1,  183 

Hagen  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 

Co.  et  al.,  1912,  8  W.  R.  C. 

R.  544 IX,  487 

Hall  v.  DeCuir,  1877,  95  U.  S. 

485 : Ill,  573 

Hampe  et  al  v.   Pittsburg  & 

Birmingham   Traction    Co., 

et  al.,  1895, 165  Penn.  St.  468 

.:. ; IV,  474 

Handy  v.  C.  &  M.  R.  Co.,  1887, 

31  Fed.  689 1,  753;  XV,  795 

Hannibal  v.  Mo.  &  K.  Tel.  Co., 

1888,  31  Mo.  App.  23 VII,  446 

Harbinson  v.  Knoxville  W.  Co. 

1899,  53  S.  W.  (Tenn.)  993 

IV,  158 

Harmes  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 

S.  S.  M.  R.   Co.,   1913,   12 

W.  R.  C.  R.  552 XIV,  555 

Harrington  v.  Smith,  1871,  28 

Wis.  43..  .1,  187;  II,  120;  HI,  297 
Haverhill  El.  Co.;  Appeal  of, 

1903,  19  Mass  G.  &  El.  Lt. 

Comm.   R.  24 IX,   555-556 

Hawkins  v.  Hoffman,  1844,  6 

Hill,  590 VIII,  117 

H.  B.  Stanz  Co.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 

S.   S.   M.   R.    Co.,    1911,   6 

W.  R.  C.  R.  579 XII,  185 

Heaverin  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S. 

M.  R.   Co.,  1911,  6  W.  R. 

C.  R.  526 XIII,  391 

Heidt  V.    Southern   Tel.    Co., 

1905,  122  Ga.  474 XV,  613 

Heineman  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  W.  R. 

C.  R.  281 XII,  245,  765 

Hennington  v.  Georgia,  1896, 

163  U.S.  299 1,646 

Herndon  v.  C.  R.  I.  &  P.  R. 

Co.,  1910,  218  U.  S.  135  ...VI,  623 
Hickerson  Roller  Mill  Co.  v. 

N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  W.  R. 

C.  R.  395 IV,  793 

Higgins  Spring  &  Axle  Co.  v. 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 

4  W.  R.  G.  R.  384 VIII,  37 

v.  ,  1911,  8  W.  R. 

C.  R.  36 XIV,  719 

Hill  et  al.  v.  Antigo  Water  Co., 

1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  623 

IV,308,383,  580;V,  17,  276, 

309,  315,  328,  495,  502;  VI, 


Cases  Cited 


719 


Vol.  and  Pages 

278,  279;  VII,  74,  99,  103, 

211,  215,  516;  X,  119,  123, 

147,  216,  240,  241,  742;  XII, 

300,    462;   XIII,    461,    158, 

161,  162,  164 
Hilton  Lumber  Co.  v.  A.  C.  L. 

R.   Co.,   1906,  6  L.  R.  A. 

•    (N.  S.)  225 II,  200 

Hilton  Lumber  Co.  v.  Railroad 

1904,  136  N.  C.  479 II,  242 

Hodges  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1903, 

1  \V.  R.  C.  R.  300 

VIII,  506;  XI,  448 

Homer  v.  City  of  Eden  Rapids, 

1899,  80  N.  W.  1912 II,  684 

Hooper  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1870,  27  Wis.  81 IV,  474 

Hoover  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R. 

Co.,  1893,  156  Pa.  St.  220 

I,  219,  221;  II,  194,  242 

Houlton  V.   Nichol,   1896,  ,93 

Wis.  393 XV,  798 

Howard  v.  C.  St.  L.  &  N.  O. 

R.  Co.,  1883,  61  Miss.  194 

XV,  604 

Hubbard  v.   Haley,    1897,   96 

Wis.  587 II,  689;  IV,  ,349 

HuiTman  v.  Marcy  Mut.  Tel. 

Co.,    1909,    143    Iowa   590; 

121  N.  W.  1033 X,  561 

Hughson  v.  D.  S.  S.  &  A.  R. 
'  Co.,  1913,  13  W.  R.  C.  R. 

406 XV,  600 

Hurst  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909, 

3  W.  R.  C.  R.  286 XHI,  416 

Ideal  Lbr.  &  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  M. 

&   St.   P.   R.    Co.,    1909,   4 

W.  R.  C.  R.  171 

: VI,  580;  XIV,  756 

Illinois  C.  R.   Co.  v.  Illinois, 

1896,  163  U.  S.  142. ..I,  320,  518 
Industrial      Railways      Case, 

1914,  29  I.  C.  C.  R.  212..XIV,  277 
Ingato  v.  Christie,  1850,  3  C 

and  K,  61 XII,  231 

In  re  Alleged  Viol.  Ch.  610, 

Laws  1913,  by  Lisbon  Tel. 

Co.,  1914, 14  W.  R.  C.  R.  131 

XIV,  399,  400 

In  re  Amsterdam  J.  &  G.  R. 

Co.,  1895,  86  Hun.  (N.  Y.) 

578 HI,  290 

In  re  Appleton  W.  Wks.  Co., 

1910,  6  W.  R.  C.  R.  97, 

XII,  662,  663 

In  re  Appl.  Cedar  Rapids,  1892 

85'Iowa'39;  51  N.  W.  1142... 

X,  554 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1911,8  W.R.  C.  R.  101,  103 

XI,  639,  641 


Vol.  and  Pages 
In  re  Appl.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 
Co.   et  al.,   1911,  8  W.  R. 

C.  R.  278 XI,  637 

C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co., 

1905,  1  W\  R.  C.  R.  16 

...:.... I,  240;  II,  243 

City  of  Madison,   1909, 


3  W.  R.  C.  R.  299 IV,  216 

—  City  of  Sparta,  1913, 

12  W.  R.  C.  R.  532 XIV,  686 

—  Cumberland  Mun.  El.  Lt. 


Plant,  1909,  4  W.  R.  C.  R. 
214. ..V,  36,  383,  560,  570;  VI,  342 

—  Darlington  El.  Lt.  &  W. 
P.  Co.,  1910,  5  W.  R.  C.  R. 
397 

Vn7 752 ;" "X,  1  iB7 ;  x'll i','  345,  348 

—  Farmers  Tel.  Go.  of  Be- 


town,  1914,  13  W.  R.  C.  R. 

540 XIII,  768;  XIV,.  432 

—  Ft.  Atkinson  W.  &  Lt. 
Gomm.,  1913, 12  W.  R.  G.  R. 

260 XII,  729,  731,  732 

Grand    Trunk    R.    Co., 


1904,  3  Can.  Ry.  Gas.,  438 
II,  242 

—  G.  N.   R.   Co.,   1909,   3 
W.R.  C.  R.266 111,291 

—  Greenwood     Mun.     Lt. 


Plant,  1910,  6  W.  R.  C.  R. 

60 XI,  265 

—  Jefferson  Mun.  El.  Lt.  & 
W.  Plant,  1910,  5  W.  R.  C. 

R.  555 X,  167 

La  Crosse  Gas  &  El.  Co., 


1907,2W.  R.  GR.  3 II, 

138,    146,    671,    690;    VIII, 
147,  148,  152;  IX,  551,  552; 

X,  610 

,    1911,  8  W\  R.  C. 

R.  138 X,  116 

Lancaster   El.    Lt.    Co., 


1910,  6  W.  R.  C.  R.  53.. ..XI,  265 
—  Madison  W.  Wks.,  1909, 
3  W.R.  GR.  299. ..HI,  490;      • 
V,  560,  579,  746;  VI,  94;  XI,  219 
Manitowoc  G.  Co.,  1908, 


3  W.  R.  G  R.  163. ..V,  327; 
328;  VII,  338,  339;  X,  216; 

XIII,  328 

—  Marathon  County  R.  Co., 
1911,  7  W.  R.  C.  R.  392  ...X,  410 

—  McGowan  W.  Lt.  &  P. 


Co.,  1914,  14  W.  R.  C.  R. 

325 XIV,  564 

—  Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr. 
Co.,  1909,  3  W.  R.  G  R.  778 
....IV,  308,  383,  661,  706;  V, 
17,36,45,163,276,309,315, 
327,  328,  333,  366,  383,  411, 
570;  VI,  49;  VII,  74,   103, 

339,  340,  366,  367 


720 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
In  re  Appl.  Mineral  Point  Tel. 
Co.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R.  285 

XV,  72,  187 

,    1914,  15  W.  R.  C. 

R.  70 XV,  183 

Mt.  Horeb  El.  Lt.  Co., 


1910,  6  W.  R.   C.  R.  44... 

XIII,  656,  658 

—  North  Milw.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 
1909,  4  W.  R.  C.  R.  89.  .X,  240 
Oconto  City  W.  Supply 


Co.,  1910,   5  W.  R.   C.   R. 

691 VII,  498 

,    1911,  7  W.  R.  C. 

R.  497.  VII,  655;  VIII,  56; 

X,  584,  781 
Ozaukee-Washington  Tel. 


Co.,  1911,  7  W.R.  C.  R.  428 

VII,  fel6 

—^  People's  Tel.  Co.  of  Dane 
Co.,  1908,  2  W.R.  C.  R.  518 

Ill,  453 

People's  Tel.  Co.,  1911, 


8  W.  R.  C.  R.  92 XI,  501 

—  Pewaukee-Sussex  Tel. 
Co.,  1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  420 
VII,  476 

—  Sevastopol  F.  Tel.  Co., 
1914,  14  W.  R.  C.  R.  524 
XV,  376 

Stoughton  Mun.  El.  Sys- 


tem, 1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  484 

V  333;  VI      49 
—' Village  of  Cashton,  1908,' 

2  W.  R.  C.  R.  677 X,  610 

—  Wautoma  &  Mt.  Morris 


Farmers'  Tel.   Co.,   1911,  6 

W.  R.  C.  R.  419 XI,  117 

Wis.  &  Nor.  Minn.  Ry. 


Co.,  1908,2W.R.  C.  R.  362, 

II,  387,  586;  IV,  131 

In  re  Badger  Tel.  Co.,  1908,  3 
W.  R.  C.  R.  98,  III,  552;XI, 

184,  189 

—■ Cashton  Lt.   &  P.   Co., 

1908,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  67....V, 

220;  VI,  118,  120;  XV,  363 

Charges  on  Coal  by  L.  & 


N.  R.  Co.,  1892,  5  I.  C.  C. 
R.466 1,  214 

—  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Cross- 
ing near  Camp  Douglas, 
1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R.  328.!XII,  524 

—  C.   St.   P.   M.   &  O.   R. 


Crossing  near  Columbia  Sta- 
tion, 1912,  8  W.  R.  C.  R.  516 
VIII,  733 

—  City  Water  Co.  of  She- 
boygan, 1909,  3  W.  R.  C. 
R.371 XIV,  637 


Vol.  and  Pages 

In  re  Clinton  Tel.  Co.,  1913.  13 
W.  R.  C.  R.  166 XIII,  601 

Crossing  on  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 

Co.,  north  of  Racine,  1912, 
low.  R.  C.  R.  618 XIV,  454 

on  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 

Co.  in  Town  of  Gale,  1914, 

14  W.  R.  C.  R.  445 XV,  275 

Dodgeville  Branch  of  the 

I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  W.  R. 

C.  R.  572 XV,  450,  452,  453 

Eastern  R.  Co.  of  Minn., 

1908,  116  N.  W.  (Wis.)  841 
Ill,  280,  291 

. — -  Ettrick  Tel.  Co.,  1913,  12 
W.  R.  C.  R.  744 XIII,  601 

Farmers  Tel.  Co.  of  Bee- 
town,  1913,  13  W.  R.  C.  R. 
540 XIII,  768 

Fond   du   Lac   W.    Co., 

1910,  5  W.R.  C.R.  482,  VII, 
89,  99,  100,  102;  VIII,  265; 

X,  116,  119,  241 

Free  and  Reduced  Rate 

Tel.  Service,  1908,  2  W.  R. 
C.R.  521. ...Ill,  445;  IV,  373; 
VII,  472,  475,  610;  X,  541; 
XI,  36,  506,  679,  683;  XIII, 

575;  XV,  448 
In  re  Invest.  Ashland  Water 

Co.,  1914,  14  W.  R.  C.  R.  1, 

48.  .XIV,  723,  727,  732,  733,  741 
Chestnut  Street  Crossing, 

Eau  Claire,  1913,  13  W.  R. 

C.  R.  74 XIII,  628 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Crossing 

near  Calvert,  1912,  8  W.  R. 
C.R.  519 XI,  159 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

Rates  on  Sand,   etc.,   1912, 

UW.  R.  C. R. 98  ...XIII,  384,  472    / 

C.   St.   P.   M.   &  O.   R. 

Crossing  near  Columbia  Sta- 
tion, 1912,  8  W.  R.  C.  R.  516 
...XI,     80 

Chippewa  Valley  Ry.  Lt. 

&  P.  Co.,  1912,  10  W.  R.  C. 

R.  692 XIII,     19 

,    1913,  13  W.  R.  C. 

R.  19 XIII,  444 

Crossing  on  line  of  C.  & 

N.  W.  R.  Co.,  in  Town  of 
Gale,  1914,  14  W.  R.  C.  R. 
445 XIV,  552 

Division  St.  Crossing  in 

Dodgeville,  1912,  9  W.  R. 
C.R.  367 XIV,  121 

,    1912,  11  W.  R.  C. 

^  .   R.  151 XIV,  121 

Express  Rates,  1913,  12 

W.  R.  C.  R.  1....XIII,  666,_668 


Cases  Cited 


721 


Vol.  and  Pages 

In  re  Invest.  Hudson  W.  Wks., 

1908,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  138.  IV, 

300,  301;  VI,  92;  VII,  644, 

680-681;  XI,  471;  XII,  303; 

XV,  547 

I.    G.    R.    Crossing    in 

Dodgeville,   1912,  9  W.   R. 

G.  R.  367 XI,  151,  152 

Madison  G.  &  El.   Go., 

1911,  7  W.  R.  G.  R.  152 
XIII,  259,  260,  261,  263 

Milw.  Ltg.  Rates,  1912, 

9  W.  R.  G.  R.  544 X,  610 

Mosinee  El.  Lt.  &  P.  Go., 

1914,   13  W.  R.   G.  R.  712 

XIV,  743 

In  re  Iowa  Steel  Barb  Wire  Go., 

1887,  1  I.  G.  G.  R.  17 11,241 

Kaukauna  Lt.  &  P.  Go., 

1911,8\V.R.G.R.409....XII,  189 

Madison  G.  &  El.   Go., 

1911, 7  W.  R.  G.  R.  152  ...XII,  335 

Manitowoc  W.  Wks.  Go., 

1911,  7  W.  R.  G.  R.  71 

VIII,  266;  X,  116 

Men.  &  Mar.  Lt.  &  Tr. 

Go.,  1909,  3  W.  R.  G.  R.  778 
X,  123,  167,  171,  241 

Merrill  Ry.   &  Lt.   Go., 

1911,  8  W.  R.  G.  R.  270  ...X,  631 
Metropolitan  El.  R.  Go., 

1888,  2  N.  Y.  Supp.  278.  ..IV,  352 

Mill   St.    Ry.    Grossing, 

1912,  8  W.  R.  G.  R.  122  ...IX,  198 

Milw.  Lt.  H.  &  T.  Go., 

1907, 112  N.W.  663. II,  587,  588 

Milw.  Southern  R.  Go., 

1905,  124  Wis.  490 Ill,  51 

Milw.     Suburban     and 

Interufban  Ry.  Rates,  1914, 

13  W.  R.  G.  R.  475 

XV,    334,    340-43,    349-56, 

726,  728,  734,  751 
,   1914,     15   W.    R. 

G.  R.  330 XV,  726,  728,  734 

Obstructions  in  the  Rock 

River    at    Janesville,    1914, 

14  W.  R.  G.  R.  190 XIV,  480 

Oconto  Gity  Water  Sup- 
ply Go.,  1911,  7  W.  R.  G.  R. 
497 XIV,  70 

Petition  Eastern  Wis.  Ry. 

6  Lt.  Go.,  1909,  4  W.  R.  G. 

R.  127 IV,  134 

Physical  Gonn.  between 

Glinton  &  Bergen  Tel.  Go., 
1912,  10  W.  R.  G.  R.  598 
XIII,  250,  252,  253 

Platteville,     Rewey     & 

EUenboro    Tel.    Go.,    1911, 

7  W.  R.  G.  R.  608  ...X,  535,  541 


Vol.  and  Pages 
In   re   Proposed   Advances   in 

Freight  Rates,  1903,  9  I.  G. 

G.  R.  382 V,  221 

Proposed    Extension    of 

Lines  of   Glinton  Tel.    Go., 

1913,  13  W.  R.  G.  R.  166... 

XIV,  399 

of  Lines  of  Ettrick 


Tel.    Go.,    1913,    12   W.   R. 

G.  R.  744 XIV,  399 

—   of  Lines    of  West 

Kewaunee  &  Western  Tel. 
Go.,  1914,  14  W.  R.  G.  R. 
219 XIV,  399 

—  Racine  Water  Go.,  1913, 

10  W.  R.  G.  R.  543 XIII,  31 

—  Rates    on    Gonstruction 


Material,  1906,  1  W.  R.  G. 
R.210 VII,  6 

—  Rates    on    Live    Stock, 
1907,  1  W.  R.  G.  R.  778 

Ill,  513;  VII,  136,  137 

—  Rates  on  Milk  and  Gream 


1908,  2  W.  R.  G.  R.  450. ..Ill,  426 

—  Rates    on    Pulp    Wood, 

1908,  2  W.R.  G.  R.  168 

VIII,  105-105,  114,  548;  IX, 
112,  113,  121,  124,  128,  487; 
XI,  366,  368,  370,  378,  391, 

394,  395 

—  Refusal  of  Service  by 
Madison  Gas  &  El.  Go., 
1914,  13  W.  R.  G.  R.  518... 
XV,  411 

—  St.  Louis  Millers'  Assn., 
1887,  1  I.  G.  G.  R.  20 II,  241 

—  Service  of  T.  M.  E.  R.  & 
L.  Go.  in  Milw.,  1913,  13 
W.  R.  G.  R.  178. ..XIV,  790, 
791,  792;  XV,  336,  594,  595,  737 

—  Standards  for  G.  &  El. 


Service,  1908,  2  W.  R.  G.  R. 
632....IV,  743;V,  87,  88,  169, 
704;  VI,  323;  VIII,  271-272; 
X,  630,  631;  XIII,  5,  637, 
642;  XII,  418,  432,  570;  XIV,  356 

,  1913,  12  W.  R.  G. 

R.  418. ...XII,  573,  576;  XIII, 
644,    645;    XIV,    353,    356, 

378;  XV,  136,  384 
Standards  for  Telephone 


Service,  1914, 15  W.  R.  G.  R. 
1....XV,  52, 102, 153, 154, 376, 

377,  561,  580,  581,  584,  624 

—  Suspension  of  Western 
Glassification  51,  1912,  25 
I.  G.   G.  R.  442 

XI,  522,  524,  528,  531 

—  The  Canadian  Freight 
Assn.  &  Industr.  Gorp., 
1904,  3  Gan.  Ry.  Gase  427..II,  242 


722 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
In  re  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et 
al.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R.  541 

X,  613;  XII,  587 

Transportation   of   Salt, 

1904,  10  I.  G.  C.  R.  148. .11,  295 
Unlawful  Rates  on  Cotton 


by  the  K.  C.  M.  &  B.  R.  Co., 

1899,  8  I.  C.  C.  R.  121 

I,  215;  II,  241 

—  Washington  S.  R.,  1889, 

115  N.  Y.  442 1,  184 

Wis.  C.  R.  Co.,  Charge  on 


Constr.  Material  for  Mfg. 
Plants,  1906,  1  W.  R.  C.  R. 
210 I,  242;  II,  243 

Interborough  Rapid  Transit 
Co.  V.  City  of  New  York, 
et  al.,  1905,  95  N.  Y.  Supp., 
886 IV,  351 

Interstate  Com.  Com.  v.  B.  & 
O.  R.  Co.,  1890,  43  Fed.  37 
I,  5,  12,  216;  II,  244 

V.  ,  1892,  145  U.  S. 

263 1,  13,  217,  501;  II,  194 

V.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co.,  1902, 


186  U.  S.  320... VI,  71 

—  V.  Louis.  &  Nash.  R.  R., 

1913,  227  U.  S.  88 XI,  539 

V.    Railway    Co.,    1897, 


167U.  S.  479 1,337 

Irvin  V.  Rushville  Co-Opera- 
tive  Tel.  Co.,  1903,  161  Ind. 
524 IV,157 

Jack   V.   Williams,    1902,    113 

Fed.  823. ..IV,  762-763;  XV,  820 
V.  ,  1906,  145  Fed. 

281 IV,  762;  V,  277 

Jacksonville  M.  P.  R.  &  N.  Co. 

V.  Hooper,  1896,  160  U.  S. 

514 IV,352 

Jacobson  v.  W.  M.  &  P.  R.  Co., 

1898,  74  N.  W.  893 1,  83 

Jamestown  v.  C.  B.  &  N.  R. 

Co.,  69  Wis.  648 XIV,  447 

Janes  v.  City  of  Racine  et  al., 

1913,  155  Wis.  1;  143  N.  W. 

707 XIII,  31 

Janesville,  City  of,  v.  Janesville 

W.  Co.,  1911,  7  W.  R.  C.  R. 

628,  VIII,  362;  X,  393;  XI, 

471;  XIV;  692,  693,694 
Janesville  Water  Co.  v.  City  of 

Janesville  et  al.,  1914,   156 

Wis.  655 XV,  119 

Jefferson  Ice  Co.  v.  C.  &  N. 

W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  W.  R.  C. 

R.  431 IV,  797 

Joannes  Bros.  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3  W.  R. 

C.  R.  422 Ill,  592,  622 


Vol.  and  Pages 
John  Hoffman  &  Sons  Co.  v. 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R.  530..XIII,  322 
Johns-Manville  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  W.  R. 

C.  R.  114 VIII,  17;  XIV,  756 

Johnson  v.  L.   R.   Co.,   1874, 

10  Bush.  231 1,185 

Jones  V.  Wis.  Ry.  Lt.  &  P.  Co., 

1914,  14  W.  R.  C.  R.  518... 

XV,  175 

Jones  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C.  R. 

520 1,  613;  VII,  782 

Joplin  W.  Wks.  Co.  v.  Joplin, 

1903,  177  Mo.  496 VIII,  679 

Kaiser  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M. 
&  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  W.  R. 
C.R.196....VIII,17;XI,725; 

XIV,  756 

Kansas  ex  rel.  v.  D.  C.  M.  & 
T.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1894,  53 
Kan.  329 IV,  763 

Katzenberger  v.  Lawo,  1891, 
90Tenn.  235 ...I,  184 

Kaufmann  &  Co.  v.  Wis.  &  N. 
R.  Co.,  1911,  6  W.  R.  C.  R. 
497 XI,  709 

Kaukauna  Elec.  Lt.  Co.  v. 
Kaukauna,  1902,  114  Wis. 
327 II,  685 

Keene  v.  The  Borough  of 
Bristol,  1856,  26  Pa.  St.  46 
X,  553 

Kellogg  V.  Citizens  Ins.  Co., 
1896,  94  Wis.  554 II,  115 

Kemp  et  al.  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  3  W.  R.  C.R.  350 
....IV,  316;  VIII,  245;  XIII,  526 

Kenfield  &  Lamoreaux  v.  C.  St. 
P.  M.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4 
W.  R.  C.  R.  .465 VI,  206 

Kennayde  v.  Pacific  R.  Co., 
1870,  45  Mo.  258 II,  122 

Kennebec  W.  Dist.  v.  Water- 
ville,  1902,  97  Me.  185...  Ill, 
85;  V,   223,   224;  VI,    120; 

.  VIII,     26 

Kenosha  El.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Ke- 
nosha G.  &  El.  Co.,  1911,  8 
W.  R.  C.  R.  119 IX,  551 

Kentucky  &  Indiana  Bridge 
Co.  V.  L.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1899, 
37  Fed.  567..; IV,  473;  V,  424 

Keogh  Excelsior  Mfg.  Go.  et  al. 
V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1908,  2  W.  R.  C.  R.  717..XI,  135 

Kiel  Wooden  Ware  Go.  v.  G. 
M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  3 
W.  R.  C.  R.  597 IV,  482 


Cases  Cited 


723 


Vol.  and  Pages 

King  V.  Dickenson,  1  Saund. 
135 II,  122 

Kinnavey  v.  Terminal  R. 
Assn.,  1897,  81  Fed.  802. ..II,  122 

Kirwin  et  al.  v.  City  of  Dar- 
lington, 1910,  6  W.  R.  C. 
R.  26 VI,  408;  X,  657 

Knapp  V.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1910,  5  W.R.  C.  R;176....X, 
573,  575,  576,  577,  582,  583; 

•     XV,  450 

Koch  V.  Pa.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1905, 

10  I.  C.  C.  R.  675.  .II,  200,  241 
Koenig  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 

Co.,  1912,  10  W.  R.  C.  R. 

337 Xiri,  478 

et  al.  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 

Co.  et  al.,  1912,  10  W.  R. 
C.   R.  337. ...XV,  344,   733, 

750,  751 

La  Crosse  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Hig- 
bee,  1900,  107  Wis.  389....XV,  661 

La  Crosse  Mfrs.  &  J.  U.  v.  C. 
M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1888,  1  I.  C.  C.  R.  629. ..II,  241 

La  Crosse  W.  Power  Co.  v.  C. 
St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  1910, 
4  W.  R.  C.  R.  412 VI,  174 

Ladysmith,  City  of,  v.  M.  St. 
P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913, 

11  W.  R.  C.  R.  325 XI,  554 

Lake  Shore  &  M.  S.  R.  Co.  v. 

C.  S.  &  C.  R.  Co.,  1876,  30 
Ohio  St.  604 II,  377 

V.  Ohio,  1899,  173  U.  S. 

285 1,  79,  335,  646 

V.  Smith,   1899,   173  U. 

S.684 1,5,79,320,518; 

III,  333;  IV,  762 

Lake  St.  El.  R.  Co.  v.  Ziegler, 
1890,  99  Fed.  114 II.     61 

Lamar  W.  &  El.  Lt.  Co.  v.  La- 
mar, 1897,  140  Mo.  145.... 
VIII.  679 

Lamb  v.  Eastern  Wis.  Ry.  & 
Lt.  Co.,  1911,  6  W.R.  C.  R. 
473 X,  167 

Lang  V.  City  of  La  Crosse  et  al., 

1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  292     IV, 
761;  XIV,  522,  714;  XV,  659 

Laning-Harris  Coal  etc.,  Co.  v. 
A.  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.,  1907, 

12  1.  C.  C.  R.479 VI,     71 

Laona  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  M.  St. 

P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912, 

24  I.  C.  C.  R.  639 XII,  763 

Laun  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1910,  6  W.  R.  C.  R.  5 ..  .XIV.  249 
Laurel  Cotton  Mills  v.  G.  &  S. 

I.  R.  Co.,  1904,  37  So.  134. 1,  215 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Laurel    Cotton    Mills    Co.    v. 

G.  &  S.  I.  R.  Co.,  84  Miss. 

339;  66  L.  R.  A.  433 II,  242 

Laursen  et  al.  v.  M.  St.  P.  & 

S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913.  11  W. 

R.  C.  R.  627 XIV,  555 

Leonard  Coon  et  al.  v.  W.  C.  R. 

Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  724 

I,  722;  II,  1,355 

Leverett  v.  M.  G.  A.  R.  Co., 

1895,  96  Ga.  385.. I,  761 

Liberty  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906, 

1  W.  R.  C.  R.  139 1,  537 

Lieberman  v.  C.  &  S.  S.  R.  T. 

Co..  1892,  141  111.  140 1,  184 

Lienemann  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 

R.  Co.,  1907.  2  W.  R.  C.  R. 

88 IV,    169;  VII,  768 

Light  &  Power  Co.  v.  Hobbs, 

1904,  72  N.  H.  531 XV,  790 

Lincoln  S.  R.  Co.  v.  McClel- 

lan,  1898,  54  Neb.  672 1,  183 

Lindemann    v.    Rusk    et    al., 

1905, 125  Wis.  210 Ill,     86 

Linden  Land  Co.  v.  T.  M.  E. 

R.  &  L.  Co.,  1900,  107  Wis. 

493 II,  689;  XV,  664 

Lindsay  Brothers  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  W.  R. 

C.  R.  114 Ill,  518,  597 

Listman  Mill  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1898,  8  I.  C. 

C.  R.  47 II,  200 

Lockport  Lt.  Ht.  &  P.  Co.  et 

al..  In  re  Matter  of,  1907, 

1  P.  S.  C.  R.  (2nd.  Dist.  N. 

Y.),  12 IX,  552-553 

Loehr  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1906,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  34 II,     67 

Loftus-Hubbard  Elevator  Co. 

V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  1906,  1  W. 

R.C.R.91....II,762;  111,512; 

VI,  572 

London  &  N.   W.   R.   Co.   v. 

Price  &  Son,  1883,  L.  R.  11 

Q.  B.  D.  485 IV,  352 

Long  Branch  Comm.  v.  Tin- 
tern  Manor  W.  Co.,  1905,  70 

N.J.  Eq.71 VIII,     26 

Los   Angeles   v.    Los   Angeles 

Water  Co.,  1900,  177  \J.  S. 

558 XV,  799 

Lothrop  et  al.  v.  Village  of  Sha- 
ron, 1912,  8  W.  R.  C.  R.  479 

XIII,  8,  9,  10 

Louisville  &  Jeffersonville  Fer- 
ry Co.  v.   Kentucky,  1903, 

188  U.  S.  385 XV,  628 

Louisville    &    N.    R.    Co.    v. 
•  Commonwealth,    1900,    108 

Ky.  628 II.  242 


724 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Louisville  &  N.  R.  Co.  v.  New 
Orleans  Terminal  Co.,  1908, 

45   So.    Rep.    962 11,382 

V.  P.  &  K.  C.  Co.,  1901, 

23  Am.  &  E.  R.  Cases,  332... 

■ I,  758 

V.    West    Coast    Naval 


Stores  Co.,  1905,  198  U.  S. 

483 XV,  821 

Louisville  G.  Co.  v.  Dulaney 

&  Alexander,  1907,  100  Ky. 

405 Ill,  142 

Loyal  Business  Men's  Assn.  v. 

W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R. 

C.R.  720 X,  582 

Lucas,  Town  of,  v.  C.  St.  P. 

M.  &  0.  R.   Co.,   1913,  11 

W.  R.  C.  R.  592 XII,  703 

v.  ,  1913,  12  W.  R. 

C.R.  703 XIV,  488 

Lyon  et  al.  v.  Green  Bay  & 

M.   R.    Co.,   1877,   42   Wis. 

538 Ill,  81 

Mace  Lime  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R. 
590 Ill,  595 

Macrow  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  1871,  L.  R.  6  Q.  B.  622 
VIII,  117-118 

Maginnis  v.  Knickerbocker 
IceCo.  etal.,  1901,  112  Wis. 
385 IV,  401,  794 

Maiden  Rock  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R. 
Co.,  1909,  4  W.R.  C.R.  311 
VIII,  245,  246 

Malochee  v.  Great  Southern 
Tel.  &  Teleg.  Co.,  1897,  49 
La.  Ann.  1690 IV,  157 

Manitowoc,  City  of,  v.  Mani- 
towoc   &  Northern  T..   Co, 

1911,   145  Wis.   13 

VI,  400;  X,  12,  335 

v.  Manitowoc  El.  Lt.  Co., 

1910,  5  W.  R.  C.  R.  360 

VII,  375-376;  X,  167 

Manitowoc  Malting  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1906,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.,  69 

I,605;III,482;IV,  197,  198; 

V,  671,  673 

Manson  &  Weinfeld  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  W. 
R.  C.R.  362 VII,  15 

Manufacturers'  Coal  Rates 
Case,  1904,  3  Caii.  Ry.  Cases 
438 11,196 

Manufacturers'  Construction 
Material  Case,  1904,  3  Can. 
Ry.  Cases,  427 II,.  196 


'  Vol.  and  Pages 

Marinette,  City  of,  v.  City  W. 

Co.    of    Marinette,    1911,    8 

W.  R.  C.  R.  334 X,  740 

Marion    W.    Co.    v.    Marion, 

1903,  121  la.  306 VIII,  679 

Marshall  v.  American  Express 

Co.,  1858,  7  Wis.  1,  24 

Ill,  562,  566 

Marshfield  v.   Wis.  Tel.    Co., 

1899,   102  Wis.   604,   610... 

:....VII,  445;  XI,  303-304 

Martin  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  Co. 

et  al.,  1888,  2  I.  C.  C.  R.  25 

II,  241 

Marvin  v.  Anderson,  1901,  111 

Wis.  387 11,587 

Massachusetts  L.  &  T.  Co.  v. 

Hamilton,  1898,  88  Fed.  588 

I,  182 

Matter  of  Amsterdam,  J.  &  G. 

R.  Co.,  1895,  86  Hun.  578.... 

II,  691 

Matter    of    Attorney-General, 

1908,  124  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 

401 IX,  557 

Matter  of  Wood,  1904,  99  App. 

Div.  (N.  Y.)  334 Ill,  291 

— ,  1905,  181  N.  Y.  93 Ill,  291 

Mayer  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 

et  al.,  1911,  8  W.  R.  C.  R. 

328 XI,  707 

V.  I.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909, 

4  W.   R.   C.   R.   268 

VIII,  330,  332 

Mays  V.  Seaboard  Airline  Ry. 

Co.,  1906,  75  So.  Car.  455... 

XV,  420 

McCall  V.  Chamberlain,  1861, 

13  Wis.   637 1,   635 

McChesney    v.     Hyde    Park, 

1894,  151  111.  634 VIII,  26 

McDermott  v.  Davidson,  1845, 

1  How.  Prac.  194 II,  587 

McFarland  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 

Co.,  1906,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  248 

I,  537,  661;  II,  346 

McGowan    v.    Rock    County 

Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  14  W. 

R.  C.  R.  529 XV,  379 

McGowan  v.  W.  &  W.  R.  Co., 

1886,  95  N.  C.  417 IV,  350 

McGrath  v.  D.  M.  &  M.  R.  Co. 

1885,  24  N.  W.  854 1.  170 

McGrew  v.  The  M.  P.  Ry.  Co., 

1893,  114  Mo.  210 II,  122, 

McKinley   Tel.    Co.   v.    Cum- 
berland Tel.  Co.,  1913,  152 

Wis.  359 XV,  501 

McMillan  et  al.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.  et  al.,  1914,  13  W.  R. 

C.R.  679 XV,  228 


/ 


Cases  Cited 


725 


Vol.  and  Pages 
McAIillan  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 

Co.,  1912,  low.  R.G.R.  556 

XIII,  683. 

McNeill  V.  So.  Ry.  Co.,  1906, 

202U.  S.  543 VI,  71 

Medford  Fruit  Package  Co.  v. 

\V.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1906, 

1  W.  R.  C.  R.  44 Ill,  512 

Memphis  &  L.   R.   R.   Co.  v. 

Dow,  1887,  120  U.  S.  287. ..II,  61 
Menasha  Paper  Co.  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.   Co.  et  al.,   1909, 

3  W.  R.  C.  R.  620 

VI,  183;  XI,  273 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R. 

Co.,  1909,  4  W.  R.  C.  R.  360 

IX  38 

V.  WT  CrR."  Co.,  1908,  ' 


2  W.  R.  C.  R.  300 II,  609 

Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v. 

W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1908,  2  W.  R. 

C.  R.  589  ...II,  702;  III,  56, 

64;  IV,  194;  XI,  64;  XIV,  627 
Merchants  &  Mfrs.  Assn.   of 

Milw.  V.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co. 

et  al.,  1913,  12  W.  R.  C.  R.  1 

XIII,  666,  668;  XIV,  817 

Merrill,  City  of,  v.  Merrill  Ry. 

&  Lt.  Co.,  1910,  5  W.  R.  C. 

R.  418 XIV,  149 

Merrill  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v. 

C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1908, 

3  W.  R.  C.  R.  54. ..Ill,  469, 
571;  IV,  209,  776;  V,  292, 
646;  VI,  217,  435;  XIV,  627; 
XV,  179 

Merryman  v.  C.  G.  W.  R.  Co., 

1907,  113  N.  W:  (la.)  357... 

IV,  140 

Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 

Co.,  1873,  36  N.  J.  L.  407; 

affirmed  37  N.  J.  531 1,  754 

Metropolitan   City  R.    Co.  v. 

Chi.  W.  Div.  R.  Co.,  1877, 

87  111.,  317 XV,  628 

Meyer  v.  Rib  Lake  Lbr.  Co. 

et  al.,  1909,  4  W.  R.  C.  R. 

178 XII,  232,  233,  234 

Meyer  et  al.  v.  Sheboygan  G. 

Lt.  Co.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R. 

439 XI,  311,  315 

Middlessex  R.  Co.  v.  Boston 

etc.  R.  Co.,  1874,  115  Mass. 

347 1,635 

Milvale  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1890, 

131Pa.  St.  1 1,184 

Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.   Co.  et  al.,   1912, 

9  W.  R.  C.  R.  193 XI,  344 

V. ,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C. 

R.  662 IX,  21;X,       9 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Milwaukee,  City  of,  v.  C.  M.  & 
St.  P.  R.  Co.  «t  al.,  1912, 
8  W.  R.  C.  R.  R.  295. ..VIII, 

536;  X,  355;  XIII,  38 

V.T.M.E.R.&L.C0.1912, 

10W.R.C.R.1..X,  312,313, 
318,  325-327,  332-334,  347, 
348,  356,  363,  367,  739,  742, 
743,  745,  747;  XI,  24,  29,  338, 
430;  XII,  609;  XIII,  38-40, 
42,  43,  45,  50,  51,  52-58,  60- 
63,  65,  66,  488,  489;  XIV,  38 
-,  1913,  11  W.  R.  C. 


R.  338  ...XI,  430;  XIII,  273,  274 
Milw.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  v.,  Brd. 
of  Supervisors  of  Crawford 

Co.,  1871,  29  Wis.  116 1,  624 

,  V.  Milwaukee,  1874,  34 

Wis.  271 1,  625 

Milw.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co.,  The,  v. 
City  of  Milwaukee,  1898,  87 
Fed.  Rep.  577....X,  1 1 ,  22,  23, 

65,  81;  XV,  748 

v.   Milwaukee  Northern 

Ry.  Co.,  1913,  13  W.  R.  C. 

R.  268.. ..XIII,  302,  303,  306,  307 

Milw.  Sand  Stone  Co.  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  13  W. 
R.  C.  R.  671 XIII,  670 

Milwaukee  Southern  R.  Co., 
In  re,  1905,  124  Wis.  490.III,     51 

Milwaukee-Waukesha  B  r  w  g. 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1910,  5  W\  R.  C.  R.  546 

VI,  518,    519;   XIII,  530 

Minneapolis  &  St.  L.  R.  Co.  v. 
Minnesota,.  1902,  186  U.  S. 
257...:...  I,   85,   86,   339;   II,  294 

Minneapolis  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M. 
R.  Co.  V.  Menasha  Wooden- 
ware  Co.,  1914, 159  Wis.  130; 
150  N.  W.  411 ..XV,  814 

V.    Railroad    Comm.    of 

Wis.,  1908, 136  Wis.  146....IV, 
62,  119,  139,  624,  625;  VI, 

,569;  VII,  146 

Minneapolis  Threshing  Ma- 
chine Co.  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O. 
R.  Co.,  1909,  17  I.  C.  C.  R. 
189 VI,     71 

Minnesota  Canal  &  Pr.  Co.  v. 
Koochicking  Co.,  1906,  97 
Minn.  429 XV,  789 

Mississippi  R.  Com.  v.  I.  C. 
R.  Co.,  1906,  203  U.  S.  335 
...I  321,  518,  646,  316;  IV,  125 

Missouri  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.  v. 
Bowles,  1897, 1  Ind.  Ter.  250 
Ill,  56,  571;  IV,  777;  VI,  435 

V.  Love,  1910,  177  Fed. 

493 VI,  120,  121 


726 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Missouri,  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.  v. 

Norfolk,  1909,  25  Okla.  325 

VIII,   246 

Missouri  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Larabee 
.  Flour  Mills  Co.,   1909,  211 

U.S.  612 VI,     70 

V.  Nebraska,   1896,   164 

U.  S.  403 XV,  420 

V.  -,  1910,  217  U.  S. 


196 XV,  420 

Monongahela  v.  Monongahela 

E.  L.  Co.,  1892,  4  Am.  El. 

Cases,  53 VII,  445 

Monroe  W.  Wks.  Co.  v.  Mon- 
roe, 1901,  110  Wis.  11, 

VIII,  677,678;  XV,  629 

Morgan  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S. 

M.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  \V.  R.  C. 

R.  165 XIII,  373 

Morris  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St. 

P.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  W.  R. 

C.  R.  560 XV,  603 

Mt.  Horeb,  Village  of,  v.  C.  & 

N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  10  W. 

R.  C.  R.'623..., XII,  496 

Mowry  v.   Farmers'   Loan   & 

^TrustCo.,1896,76Fed.38..II,    60 
Mundt  V.  S.  &  F.  D.  L.  R.  Co., 

1872,  31  Wis.  451 1,  188 

Munn  V.  Illinois,  1876,  94  U. 

S.  113 1,77,334,335,336, 

640,  642,  643,  644,  645 
Mutual  Union  Teleg.    Co.   v. 

Chicago,  1883,  16  Fed.  309 

...VII,  449 

Nash.  etc.  R.  Co.  v.  Alabama, 

1888,  128  U.  S.  96 1,  646 

National     Foundry     &     Pipe 

Works  V.  Oconto  Water  Co., 

1892,  52  Fed.  29 II,     60 

National  Mfg.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  R. 

Co.  et  al.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C. 

R.509 XV,  422 

National    Travelers    Assn.    v. 

Wis.  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1910,  5 

W.  R.  C.  R.  678 VI,  432 

National    W.     Wks.     Co.     v. 

Kansas  City,  1894,  62  Fed. 

853 Ill,  86;  VI,  120 

Neenah,  City  of,  v.  Wis.  T.  L. 

H.  &.  P.  Co.,  1910,  4  W.  R. 

C.  R.  471 VI,  402 

Neenah  v.  Wis.  T.  L.  H.  &  P. 

Co.,  1911,7  W.R.  C.  R.  477 

VIII,  252 

Nelson  et  al.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co., 

1911,   7  W.   R.   C.   R.   764 

VIII,  685 

V.  -,  1912,  8  W.  R. 

C.  R.  685 X,  508 


Vol.  and  Pages 

New  Eng.  E.  Co.  v.  O.  S.  R. 
Co.,  1896,  75  Fed.  162 1,  182 

New  Jersey  Steam  Navigation 
Co.  V.  Merchants'  Bank, 
1848,  47  U.  S.  344 Ill,  562 

New  York  v.  Squire,  1892,  145 
U.  S.   175 XI,  304,  305 

New  York  Brd.  of  Trade  & 
Tr'n  et  al.  v.  P.  R.  Co.  et 
al.,  1891,  4  I.  C.  C.  R.  447.... 
I,  215,  216 

New  York  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co. 
V.  A.  I.  E.  R.  Co.,  1904,  178 
N.  Y.  75 Ill,  291 

V.  B.  &  W.  E.  R.   Co., 

1904,  89  N.  Y.  Supp.  418.... 
Ill,  291 

New  York,  City  of,  v.  Inter- 
borough  Rapid  Transit  Co., 
1907,  104  N.  Y.  Supp.  157 
IV,  351,  352,  353 

New  York  ex  rel.  Penn.  R.  Co. 
V.  Knight,  1904,  192  U.  S.  21 
VI,    70,     72 

New  York,  N.  H.  &  H.  R.  Co's 
Appeal,  1902,  75  Conn.  264 
I,  762 

V.  Int.  Com.  Com.,  1906, 

200  U.  S.  361 II,  295 

V.  New  York,  1897,  165 

U.  S.  628...... I,  646 

Newburyport  W.  Co.  v.  New- 
buryport,  1897,  168  Mass. 
541 VI,  120 

Nichols  V.  HaUiday,  1871,  27 
Wis.  406 1,  186 

Noble  et  al.  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  & 
O.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R..C. 
R.  767 II,  601;  VI,  444 

Nolan  V.  N.  Y.  N.  H.  &  H.  R. 
Co.,  1876,  41  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct. 
541 XV,  604 

Norton  v.  Peck,  1854,  3  Wis. 
714 X,  551 

Northern  Hardwood  Lbr.  Co. 
V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1907,  2  W. 
R.   C.   R.  37. II,  437,  438 

Northern  Hemlock  &  Hard- 
wood Mfrs.  Ass'n  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12  W. 
R.  C.  R.  241,  XIV,  625,  630; 

XV,  646,  647 

Northwestern  Fuel  Co.  v.  Lee, 
1899,  102  Wis.  426 II,  587 

Northwestern  Tel.  Exch.  Co. 
V.  City  of  Minneapolis,  1900, 
81  Minn.  140....VII,  447-448; 

XI,  303 

N.  W.  Warehouse  Co.  v. 
Oregon  Ry.  &  Navig.  Co., 
1903,  32  Wash.  218 XV,  420 


Cases  Cited 


727 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Norwich  G.  &  El.  Co.  v.  Nor- 
wich, 1904,  76  Conn.  565.... 
VI,  120 

Oak  Grove  Farm  Creamery  v. 

Adams   Express   Co.   et  al., 

1910,  19  I.  C.  C.  R.  454... 

VIII,8 

Ogden  V.  Glidden,  1859,  9  Wis. 

46 1,  187 

Olcott  v.  Supervisors  F.  d.  L. 

Co.,  1872,  16  Wal.  678 

1,77,335 

Olean  Street  R.  Co.  v.  P.  R. 

Co.,   1902,  78  N.  Y.  Supp. 

113;  175  N.  Y.  468. ..II,  370,  371 
Olson  V.  Mayor,  1883,  56  Wis. 

551 ...VIII,  676 

Omaha  v.  Omaha  Water  Co., 

1910,  30  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  615, 

218  U.  S.  180 VI,  120 

Omaha  Water  Co.  v.  Omaha, 

1907,  156  Fed.  922 VIII,  679 

Oregon  R.   Co.  v.   O.  R.   Co. 

etc.,  1889,  130  U.  S.  1 1,  635 

Osborn  v.  Jaines,  1863,  17  Wis. 

573...-. VIII,  330 

Oshkosh  V.  Milwaukee  &  Lake 

Winnebago    R.    Co.,    1889, 

74  Wis.  534 XIV,  447 

Oshkosh  Logging  Tool  Co.  v. 

C.  &  N.  W.  R.   Co.,  1907, 

2  W.  R.  C.  R.  116..:. II,  128; 

130,  251,  301,  609;  III,  342; 

VII,  778 
Owensboro    Gaslight    Co.    v. 

Hildebrand,  1897,  42  S.  W. 

(Ky.)351 IV,  156 

Pabst  Brwg.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  1909,  4  W.  R.  C.  R. 

173. VI,  580;  XII,  185 

V. ,  1910,  4  W.  R.  C. 

R.  403 XIV,  756 

V.  Milwaukee  1905,  126 


•     Wis.  110 VIII,  675 

Paine  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  L.  V.  R. 

Co.  et  al.,  1897,  7  I.  C.  C.  R. 

218 II,  391 

Parker  v.  Kane,  1854,  4  Wis.  1 

V.  112 

Parks  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1873, 

33  Wis.  413. Ill,  81 

Patapsco    G.    Co.     v.     North 

Carolina,  1898,  171  U.  S.  345 

I,  646 

Patten  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1873,  32  Wis.  524 IV,  139 

Payne  et  al,  v.  Wis.  Tel.  Co., 

1909,  4  W.R.  C.  R.  1 IV, 

308,  375,  383;  V,  276;  VII, 

103,  472; X,  240 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Pennington  v.  P.  W.  &  B.  R. 

Co.,  1883,  62  Md.  95 XV,  604 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Hughes 

1903,  191  U.  S.  477 Ill,  574 

V.  Montgomery  Co.  Pass. 

Ry.,  1895,  167  Pa.  62 XV,  660 

V.  SI.  Louis  etc.  R.  Co., 


1886,  118  U.  S.  290 1,  635 

Pensacola  Tel.   Co.  v.  W.  U.» 
'  Tel.  Co.,  1877,  96  U.  S.  1....I,  323 
People  V.  A.  &  V.  R.  Co.,  1861, 

37  Barb.  216 1,  638 

V.  ,  1862,  24  N.  Y. 

261 1,  636,  754 

V.  Commissioners,  1896, 


38  N.  Y.  Supp.  528. ..II,  375,  376 

—  V.  1905,  91  N.  Y.  , 

Supp.     977;     affirmed     184  ^ 

N.  Y.  563 II,  588 

V.  Harper,  1878,  91 


111.  357 1,  337 

—  V.  O'Brien,  1888,  111 

N.  Y.  2;  2  L.  R.  A.  255 II,  688 

V.  Willcox,  1913,  141  N. 


Y.  S.  677 XII,  662 

People  ex  rel.  Delaware  &  H. 
R.  Co.  V.  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners,     1908,     110 

N.  Y.  Supp.  862 Ill,  291 

V.  L.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1887, 

120  111.  48 1,  636,  6.37,  754 

N.  Y.  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co.  V. 


Railroad    Commissioners   et 
al.,     1904,     92    App.     Div. 

(N.  Y.)  126 Ill,  291 

—  N.  Y.  Elec.  Lines  Co.  v. 
Ellison,  1907,  188  N.  Y.  523 

: IX,  557 

V.  Squire,  1888,  107 

N.  Y.  593 XI,  304,  305 

Steward  v.  Railroad  Com- 


missioners et  al.,  1899,  160 

N.  Y.  202 Ill,  290 

Woodhaven  Gas  Co.  v. 


Deehan,  1897,  153  N.  Y.  528 

XV,  628 

Peoples  Tel.  Co.  v.  E.  R.  Co.     . 
of  M.  et  al.,  1908,  2  W.  R. 

C.  R.  822 

IV,  349,  392;  XV,  35 

Peoria  &  P.  U.  R.  Co.  v.  C.  R. 
I.  &  P.  R.  Co.,  1884,  109 
III.  135 1,80 

Peoria  &  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
son, 1882,  103  III.  187 II,  61 

Pfister  V.  Milw.  Elec.  R.  Co., 
1892,  83  Wis.  86... II,  60 

Philadelphia  &  E.  R.  Co.  et  al. 
V.  C.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1866, 
53  Penn.  St.  20 IV,  474 


728 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Pietsch  V.  Krause,  1903,   116 

Wis.  344 II,  60 

Pingree  v.  M.  C.  R.  Co.,  1898, 

118  Mich.  314 1,  337 

Pischel  V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R. 

Co.,  1910,  4  W.  R.  C.  R.  783 

.• XV,  490 

Pittsburg    &    S.     C.     Co.    v. 

Louisiana,   1895,   156  U.   S. 

590 1,646 

Pittsburg  C.  St.  L.  R.  Co.  v. 

Keokuk   &   H.   Bridge   Co., 

1889,  131  U.  S.  371 II,  587 

Plattsmouth  v.  Neb.  Tel.  Co. 

1908,  80  Neb.  460 

VII,  446-447 

Pleasants  v.  Rohrer,  1863,  17 

Wis.  577 VIII,  330 

Plumb  &  Nelson  v.  W.  C.  R. 

Co.  et  al.,  1906,  1  W.  R.  C. 

R.  19 1,  74;  III,  482;  V,  671 

Plumley     v.      Massachusetts, 

1894,  155  U.  S.  461 1,646 

Plunkett  V.  M.  S.  S.  M.  &  A. 
R.  Co.,  1891,  79  Wis.  222. ...I,  171 

Poor  Grain  Co.  v.  C.  B.  &  Q. 
R.  Co.,  1907,  12  I.  C.  C.  R. 

423 II,  701;III,  56,  571; 

IV,  777;  VI,  435 

Powell  V.  Pennsylvania,  1888, 
127  U.  S.  678 1,  646 

Prentiss  v.  Ledyard,  1871,  28 
Wis.  131 II,  115 

Prescott  V.  Tousey,  1884,  50 
N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  12 1,  116 

Price  V.  State,  1884,  74  Ga. 
378 1,    184 

Price  V.  W.  &  N.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  467. ..V,  730 

Printing  etc.  Co.  v.  Sampson, 
1875,  L.  R.  19  Eq.  462. ...XV,  79*9 

Public  Service  Corp.  et  al.  v. 
American  Lighting  Co.  et  al., 
1904,  57  Atl.  482 Ill,  143 

Pullen  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.,  1906, 

1  W.  R.  C.  R.  27 

;....I,  661;VIII,725 

Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  of  Wis.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1908,  2  W.  R.  C.  R.  168... 
VI,  175 

Pulp    &   Paoer   Mfrs.   Traffic 

Assn.  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 

et  al.,  1913,  11  W.  R.  C.  R. 

365,  XI,  396,  418;  XII,  246; 

XIII,  736,  741 
• v. 1914,  13  W.  R.  C. 

R.  735 XIV,  705;  XV,  67 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Racine,  City  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  11  W.  R.  C. 

R.740 XIV,  783 

V.  Racine  Gas  Lt.   Co., 

1911,6W.  R.  C.  R.  228,VII, 
350,  352,  354-355,  490;  VIII, 

201,  258,  488;  X,   116 
V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co., 


1913,  12  W.  R.  C.  R.  388 

XIII,     98 

Rafferty  v.  Traction  Co.,  1892, 

147  Pa.  St.  579 1,  184 

Railroad    Commission    Cases, 

1886,  116  U.  S.  307. ..I,  336,  337 
Railroad  Comm.  of  Wis.  v.  C. 

&  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1909, 

16  I.  C.  C.  R.  85 XV,  219 

Railroad  Commrs.  v.  P.  &  O. 

R.  Co.,  1874,  63  Me.  269...  I,  637 
Railway  Co.  v.  Fuller,  1873,  17 

Wall,  560 1,  645 

Reagen  v.  F.  L.  &  T.  Co.,  1894, 

154  U.  S.  362... I,  232,  336, 

337;  V,  222;  VIII,     25 
Red  Star  Steamship  Co.  v.  Jer- 
sey City,  1883,  45  N.  J.  L. 

246 Ill,  144 

Rhine,  town  of,  v.  C.  M.  &  St. 

P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  5  W.  R.  C. 

R.  184 XIV,  448 

Rhinelander,  City  of,  v.  M.  St. 

P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1912, 

8  W.  R.  C.  R.  719 XIV,  554 

V.  Rhinelander  Ltg.  Co., 

1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R.  406, 

XIII,  709,  710;  XIV,  495 

V.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R. 


Co.,  1911,  8  W.R.  C.  R.  105 

IX,  112,  129;  XI,  394,  ^97 

—  V. et  al.  1912,  9  W. 

R.  C.  R.  Ill X,  632;  XI, 

393,  394,  395,  396,  397 
-,  1914,  15  W.  R.  C. 


R.  171 XV,  389 

Rhodes  v.  Iowa,  1898,  170  U.  S, 

412 VI,  71 

Rib  Lake  Land  Co.  v.  Upham 

Mfg.  Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C. 

R.  739.. ..IV,  187,  188,  400, 

455,  456,  794;  VII,  407;  XII, 

232,  233,  234 
Rice  V.  Louisville  &  Nashville 

R.  Co.,  1888,  1  I.  C.  C.  R. 

738 XIV,  282 

Richardson  v.  Midland  R.  Co., 

1881,  4  Ry.  and  Can.  Traffic 

Cases  1 II-,  242 

Ringle  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 

R.  Co.  et  al.,  1911,  7  W.  R. 

C.  R.  170,  598 VII,  599; 

•IX,  82,  85,  86;  XIII,  758,  760 


Cases  Cited 


729 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Ripon,  City  of,  v.  Ripon  Lt.  & 
W.  Co.,  1910,  5  \V.  R.  C.  R. 
1....V,  383,  492,  563,  569,  574, 
577,  578,  621;  VI,  29,  40, 141, 
241,  360;  VII,  89,  233,  306, 
310,  311,  367,  369,  480;  X, 
116,    171;   XII,   300;   XIII, 

104,  105 

Robran  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 
Co.,  1898,  99  Wis.  83.  .XV,  660 

Rochester  &  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Bud- 
long,  1851,  6  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  467,  469 ...Ill,     81 

Rochester  Savings  Bank  v. 
Averell,  1884,  96  N.  Y.  467 
: II,  587 

Rodolf  et  al.  v.  So.  Wis.  Ry. 
Co.,  1913,  12  W.  R.  C.  R. 
49,  707 XII,  707;  XIV,  598 

Root  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co., 
1889,  114  N.  Y.  300 XIV,  281 

Rose  V.  Roddis  Lbr.  &  Veneer 
Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  307 
..V,  188 

Rosen  v.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R. 
Co.  et  al.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C. 
R.    512 1,    537,  661 

RosmiHer  v.  State,  1902,  114 
Wis.  169 VIII,  696 

Ross  et  al.  v.  Burkhardt  Mill- 
ing &  El.  P.  Co.,  1910,  5  W. 
R.  C.  R.  139..  .VII,  248,  648; 

VIII,  614;  X,  167,  790 

Rousillon  V.  Rousillon,  1880, 
14  Ch.  D.  351 II,  845 

Rowland  &  Son  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R. 
163 XIII,  384 

Ruedebusch  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.  Co.,  1913,  12  W.  R.  C.  R. 
248 XIV,     93 

Rural  Tel.  Co.  v.  Bell  Tel.  Co., 
1911,  12  Can.  Ry.  Cases  319 
* XV,     41 

Rushville  Co-Operative  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Irvin,  1901,  27  Ind. 
App.62 IV,  157 

Ryan  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
1899,  101  Wis.  506.. II,  124 

St.  Charles,  Citv  of,  v.  Stookey, 

1907,  154  Fed.  772... VIII,  679 

St.  Louis  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Trustees, 

1867,  43  111.  307 XHI,  416 

St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  V.  Gill, 

1895,    156    U.    S.    649 

I,  336,  337,  345 

V.  Gorman,  1909,  100  Pac. 

Rep.  647 VII,  723 

V.  Reynolds  et  al.,  1910, 


26  Okla.  804 VIII,  246 


Vol.  and  Pages 
St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v. 

I.  C.  R.  Co.,  1905,  HI.  C.  C. 

R.486 II,  200 

V.  Mobile  &  0.  R.  Co.  et 

al.,  1905,  11  I.  C.  C.  R.  90... 

: II,  241 

St.  Louis  J.  &   C.  R.   Co.  V. 

Trustees,  1867,  43  lU.  303 .... 

Ill,  286 

Sammons  v.    Kearney   Pr.   & 

Irrigation  Co.,  1906,  77  Neb. 

580;  110  N.  W.  308. ..XV,  791,  796 
San  Antonio   St.   Rv.    Co.   v. 

State,   1897,  90  Texas  520, 

V,  422 

San    Diego    L.    &   T.    Co.    v. 

Jasper,  1903,  189  U.  S.  439 

V,  278 

V.  National   City,   1899, 

174  U.  S.  739 y,  223 

San  Diego  W.  Co.  v.  San  Diego, 

1897,  118  Cal.  556 VIII,     25 

Sandoval  Zinc  Co.  v.  Mineral 

Point  &   Northern   R.    Co., 

1906,  1  W.  R.  C.  R.  99  ...XI,  647 
San  Joaquin  etc.   Irr.   Co.  v. 

Stanislaus  County,  1908, 163 

Fed.  567 VIII,     26 

Sante  Fe.  P.  &  P.  Ry.  v.  Grant 

Bros.   Const.   Co.,   Supreme  • 

Ct.    of   Arizona,    1910,    108 

Pac.  467,  59  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

R.  Cas.  420 ...XII,  231 

Savage  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 

R.  Co.,  1912,  low.  R.  C.  R. 

442 XI,  640 

Savannah,  F.  &  W.  R.  Co.  v. 

Bundick,   1894,  94  Ga.  775 

Ill,  56,  571;  IV,  777;  VI,  435 

Savannah  T.  &  I.  of  H.  R.  v. 

WilHams,  1903,  117  Ga.  414 

; I,  183 

Savits  V.  O.  &  M.  R.  Co.,  1892, 

49  111.  App.  315 II,  242 

Sawyer  &  Austin  Lbr.  Co.  v. 

St.  L.   I.  M.  &  S.  R.   Co., 

1911,  21  I.  C.  C.  R.  464..  .XV,  522 
Schaster  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 

Co.,  1910,  142  Wis.  578  .XV,  661 

Schicker  v.  Rockford  &  Int. 
Ry.  Co.,  1911,6W.  R.  C.  R. 
695 X,  167 

Schlosstein  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R. 
Co.,  1911,8  W.R.  C.  R.  242 
XV,  603 

Schmidt  v.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1909, 

4  W^  R.  C.  R.  121 

IV,  316;  VIII,  246;  XIV,  249 

Schumacher  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1904,  207  111.  199 1,  81 


730 


Cases  Cited 


Vol,  and  Pages 
Schwoegler  &  Kelly  v.  C.  M. 
&  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al.,  1910, 

5  W.  R.  C.  R.  287 V.  635 

Seamans  v.   Carter,   1862,  15 

Wis.  548 II,  118 

Security    Nat'l    Bank    v.    St. 

Croix  Power  Co.,  1903,  117 

Wis.  217 II,  689;  IV,  349 

Selectmen  v.   Citizens  El.  St. 

Ry.   Co.,   1908,  85  N.   E. 

(Mass.)  419 V,423 

Semrad  Bros.  &  Pusch  Brwg. 

Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 

et  al.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R. 

76 XII,  236 

Shasta  Power  Co.  v.  Walker, 

1906, 149  Fed.  568 XV,  791 

Sheboygan,  City  of,  v.  Sheboy- 
gan  Ry.   &   El.    Co.,   1911, 

6  W.  R.  C.  R.  353 

VIII,  616,  617,  644;  XIV,  208 
V.  ,  1914,  14  W.  R. 

C.R.208 XIV,  215 

Shepard  v.  Carpenter,  1893, 

54  Minn.  153 VII,  723 

Shepard  v.  Milwaukee  G.  Lt. 

Co.,  1858,  6  Wis.  539 ..VI,  156 

Sherwood  v.  A.  &  D.  R.  Co., 

1897,  94  Va.  291 IV,  763 

Sinaiko  Bros.  v.  C.  M.  Sc  St. 

P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  W.  R.  C. 

R.  432 VIII,  310;  XII,  187 

V.  -. — ,  1910,  5  W.  R. 

C.  R.  426 VIII,  310 

Singleton  V.  S.  W.  R.  Co.,  1883, 

70  Ga.  464 1,  635 

Slauson   v.  Racine,    1861,    13 

Wis.  398 1,  641 

Smeaton  et  al.  v.  Martin  et  al., 

1883,  57  Wis.  364  ...X,  550,  551 
Smith  V.  Alabama,  1888,  124 

U.S.  465 1,  646;  III,  573 

Smith  V.  Birmingham  W.  Wks. 

Co.,  1893,  104  Ala.  315  ...III,  145 
Smith  V.  Burns  Boiler  &  Mfg. 

Co.,   1907,   132  Wis.   177. ... 

VIII,  675 

Smith  V.  Capital  Gas  Co.,  1901, 

64Pac.  258 Ill,  143 

Smith  V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1887, 
1  I.  C.  C.  R.  208 1,  12 

Smith  V.  Turner,  1849,  7  How. 
283 1,322 

Smythe  v.  Ames,  1898,  169 
U.  S.  466....I,  5,  78,  232,  233, 
335,  336,  337,  340,  346,  480; 
IV,  762 

Somers,  Town  of,  v.  Chi.  & 
Milw.  El.  Ry.  Co.,  1913,  11 
W.  R.  C.  R.  581 XII,  377 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Sorrell  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1885, 

75Ga.  509 11,122 

South   Milw.   Fuel   &   Supply 

Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1911,  7  W.R.  C.  R.  1 

VIII,  474,  475;  X,  372 

Southern  Express  Co.  v.  Hol- 
land, 1895, 109  Ala.  363.. ..HI,  565 

Southern  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Int. 
Com.  Com.,  1906,  200  U.  S. 
536 , 1,216 

Southern  R.  Co.  v.  G.  I.  &  C. 
Co.,  1904,  134  Fed.  82;  202 
U.S.  542 1,648 

Southern  Wis.  Cheesemen's 
Protective  Assn.  v.  Railway 
Companies,  1906,  1  W.  R. 
C.  R.  143 XV,  219 

et  al.  V.  W.  C.  R.  Co.  et 

al.,  1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  459 
IV,  495,  496,  497 

Sparhawk  v.  Union  Passenger 
R.  Co.,  1867,  54  Pa.  St.  401 
VIII,  527,  529 

SparUn  v.  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S. 
M.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  W.  R. 
C.  R.467 X,  491 

Sprigg  et  al.  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1900,  8  I.  C.  C.  R.  443 
Ill,  332 

Spring  Valley  W.  Wks.  v.  San 
Francisco,  1890,  82  Cal.  286 
HI,  145 

■  V.  ;  1903,  124  Fed. 

574 VI,  120 

V.  ,  1908,  165.  Fed. 

667 V,  124,  225,  278 

Sproul  V.  Pillsbury,  1880,  72 
Me.  20 1,  116 

Standard  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v. 
C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1912,  9  W.R.  C.  R.  228....:... 
XI,  270,  271 

Stanislaus  Co.  v.  San  .Joaquin 
C.  &  L.  Co.,- 1904,  192  U.  S. 
201 V,  223 

Star  Grain  &  Lbr.  Co.  v. 
A.  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  Co.  et  al., 

1909,  17  I.  C.  C.  R.  338 

XII,  762,  763 

State  V.  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  R.  Co., 
1903,  176,  Mo.  687 VI,  71 

^"v.  Atwood,  1860,  11  Wis. 

422. II,   118 

V.    Campbell,    1867,    32 


N.  J.  Law  309 XV,  604 

V.  Cargill,  1899,  79  N.  W. 


962 1,640 

—  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1888,  38  Minn.  281 1,  337 


Cases  Cited 


731 


Vol.  and  Pages 
State  V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 
1908.  117  N.  W.  (Wis.),  686 

/ 111,347,574 

V.  City  of  Orange,  1891, 

54  N.  J.  L.  Ill I,  116 

V.  Dousman,  1871,  28 

Wis.  541 1,  641 

V.  D.  G.  &  W.  Co.,  1899, 

76  Minn.  96;  79  N.  W.  1032 
I,  181 

V.  F.  E.  &  M.  V.  R.  Co., 

1887,  22  Neb.  313 1,  337 

— —  V.  Fremont  etc.  R.  Co.  . 
(Neb.),  1887,  1888,  35  N.  W. 
118;  36  N.  W.  305 II,  122 

V.  G.  N.  R.  Co.,  1907, 

111  N.  W.  289 II,  56 

V.  Grey,  1893,  21  Nev. 

378  (19  L.  R.  A.  134) I,  116 

V.  H.  &  N.  H.  R.  R.  Co., 

1861,  29  Conn.  538 1,  762 

V.  Helena  P.  &  Lt.  Co., 

1899,  22  Mont.  391 V,  423 

V.  Houge,  1888,  71  Wis. 

384 X,  550,  551 

V.  Johnson,  1900,  61  Kan. 

803 1,337 

V.  Milwaukee,  1907,  113 

N.  W.  41 II,  685 

V.  Milwaukee  Ind.  Tel. 

Co.,  1907,  114  N.  W.  108  .. 
II,  542,  685 

V.  Minneapolis  &  St.  L.  R. 

Co.,  1888,  39  Minn.  219. ..I,  638 

V.  N.  H.  &  N.  R.  Co., 

1874,  41  Conn.  134 1,  229 

V.  N.  P.  R.  Co.,  1903,  90 

Minn.  277 1,754 

V.  Railway  Co.,  1887,  32 

N.W.409 1,638 

V.    Railway    Co.,    1906, 

128  Wis.  449 1,  110 

r   V.  Redmon,  1907,  114 

N.  W.  137 II,  842,  852 

V.  S.  C.  &  P.  R.  Co.,  1878, 

7  Neb.  357 1,  636,  754 

V.  Sedalia  G.  Lt.  Co.,  1889 

34  Mo.  App.  501,  508 Ill,  143 

et  al.  V.  Jersey  City,  1889, 

52  N.  J.  L.  65 Ill,  49 

et  al.  V.  Trenton,  1872, 

36  N.  J.  L.  79 Ill,  49 

ex  rel.  v.  N.  P.  R.  Co., 

1903,  90  Minn.  277 1,  637 

Andrews  v.  Oshkosh, 

1893,  84  Wis.  548 X,  550 

Ashland  Water  Co. 

V.  Wharton,  1902,  115  Wis. 

457 XV,  629 

Atty.-Gen.  v.  Frost, 

1902,  113  Wis.  623  ...I,  638,  754 


Vol.  and  Pages 
State    ex    rel.    Atty.-Gen.    v. 
Janesville  W.  Co.,  1896,  92 

Wis.  496 11,331 

Atty.-Gen.  v.  Pliny 

Norcross,  1907,  132  Wis.  534 

XIV,   194 

Atty.-Gen.  v.  Port- 
age City  Water  Wks.,  1900, 
107  Wis.  441 II,  689 

Atwater   v.  D.  L. 

&  W.  R.  Co.,  1886,  48  N.  J. 

L.  55 Ill,  334 

Burbank  v.  Superior, 

1892,  81  Wis.  649 X,  550,  551 

City  of  Duluth  v.  St. 

P.  &  D.  R.  Co.,  1899,  75 
Minn.  473. VI,  685 

City  of  Minneapolis 

V.  St.  P.  M.  &  M.  R.  Co., 
1906,  98  Minn.  380 II,  382 

— Cream  City  R.  Co. 

V.  Hilbert,  1888,  72  Wis. 
184 IV,  303 

Davis  &  Star  Lbr. 

Co.  V.  Pors,  1900,  107  Wis. 
427 II,  118 

Kohler  v.  C.  N.  O. 

&  T.  P.  R.  Co.,  1890,  47 
Ohio  St.  130;  23  N.  E.  928 
XIV,  281 

Lanyon  v.  Joplin  W. 

Wks.  et  al.,  1893,  52  Mo. 
App.  312.: Ill,  144 

Milwaukee  St.   R. 

Co.  V.  Anderson,  1895,  90 
Wis.  550 XV,  629 

Minneapolis  St.  P. 

&  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  V.  Rail- 
road Comm.  of  Wis.,  1908, 
137  Wis.  80 Ill,  604 

N.  C.  Foster  Lbr. 

Co.  V.  Williams,  1904,  123 
Wis.  61 ■ Ill,     78 

R.  &  W.  Com.  V.  C. 

M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1888, 

38  Minn.  298 1,  708 

R.  &  W.  Com.  V.  M. 

&  St.  L.  R.  Co.,  et  al.,  1900, 

80  Minn.  193 I,     85 

R.  &  W.  Com.  V.  N. 

P.  R.  Co.,  1903,  96  N.  W.  81 
I,  232 

S  my  the  v.  Milwau- 
kee Ind.  Tel.  Co.,  1907,  133 
Wis.  588 XIII,  439 

Williams  v.  Samuel- 
son,  1907,  131  Wis.  499... 
VIII,  696 

Wis.   Tel.    Co.    V. 

Janesville  St.  Ry.  Co.,  1894, 

87  Wis.  72 XI,  304 


732 


Cases  Cited 


Z' 


Vol.  and  Pa^es 

State  ex  rel.  Wis.  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Sheboygan,  1901,  111  Wis. 
23 II,  542,  685 

State  Journal  Ptg.  Co.  et  al.  v. 
Madison  Gas  &  El.  Co.,  1910 
4W.R.  C.R.  501... V,  17,46, 
276,  309,  315,  316,  328,  333, 
366,  378,  383,  493.  495,  506, 
507;  VI,  243,  278,  285;  VII, 
74,  77,  88,  89,  99,  103,  152, 
215,  237,  241,  242,  277,  278, 
287,  350,  352,  368;  VIII,  187- 
188,  488,  613;  X,  116,  119, 
123,  167,  171,  216,  240,  241, 
736,  737,  739,  742;  745,  747; 
XII,   480,   609,   614;   XIII, 

259,  455,  461 

State  Tax  on  Railway  Gross 
Receipts,  1872,  15  Wall,  293 
I,  644,  645 

Staub    V.    Van    Benthuysen, 

1884,  36  La.  Ann.  467 1,  116 

Stedman  et  al.  v.  City  of  Ber- 
lin, ia97,  97  Wis.  505    .II,  689 

Steven  &  Jarvis  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C. 
St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co..  1907, 

2W.  R.  C.R.  131 11,591, 

592;  III,  64,  388,  390;  IV, 
330,  361,  773;  VI,  206;  VIII. 
63;  IX,  38;  XI,  63-64;  XIV,  632 

V. ,  1908,  3  W.  R.  C. 

R.  66 IV,   174,  177* 

Stevens  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C.  &  N. 
W.  R.  Co.  et  al,  1913,  11  W. 
R.  C.  R.  476 XIV,  82,     83 

Stewart's  Appeal,  1867,  56  Pa. 
St.  413 1,  761 

Stillwater  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  v. 

B.  &  M.  R.  Co.,  1902,  64  N. 
E.511... I,  185 

Stolte,  Daagel^&  Foss  Co.  v. 

C.  &  N.  W.  R.   Co.,  1909, 

3  W.  R.  C.  R.  335  ...III,  338,  339 
Stone  v.  Y.  &  M.  V.  R.  Co., 

1885,  62  Miss.  607 1,  644 

Strauss  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  556.  .. 
XIII,  596 

Street  Railway  v.  Cummins- 
ville,  1863,  14  Ohio  St.  523 
XV,  660 

Streveler  v.  Marathon  County 
R.  Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C.  R. 
831 II,   64,   65,   78;  VII,  392 

V. ,  1907,  2  W.  R.  C. 

R.  64 VII.  392,  396 

V. et  al.,  1912,  10  W. 

R.  C.  R.  409 XII,  171-175 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Strickley    v.     Highland    Boy 

Mining  Co.,  1906,  200  U.  S. 

527 XV,  787 

Sullivan  v.  Thompson,   1868, 

99  Mass.  259 Ill,  566 

Superior   v.    Douglas    County 

Tel.  Co.,  1910,  141  Wis.  363 

XV,  798,  814 

Superior  Brd.  of  Trade  v.  G. 

N.  R.  Co.,  1907,  1  W.  R.  C. 

R.  619 1,  657,  659,  763 

Superior,  City  of,  v.  Douglas 

County  Tel.  Co.  et  al.,  1909, 

122  N.  W.  (W^is.)  1023. ..IV,  300 
Swedish  American  Nat'l  Banic 

V.    Koebernick,    1908,    136 

Wis.  473 VIII,  675 

Sykes  v.    City  of  St.    Cloud, 

1895,  60  Minn.  442,  VIII, 

678,  679 

Tacoma  Hotel  Co.  v.  Tacoma 

Lt.  &  W.  Co.,  1891,  3  Wash. 

316,325 IV,  159 

Tate  V.   C.  B.  &  Q.  R.   Co., 

1908,  2  W.R.  C.  R.  348.. ..II, 

766;  IV,  315;  VIII,  245 
Teasdale  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 

et  al.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R.  66 

XII,  187 

Telephone  Case,  1904,  3  Can. 

Ry.  Cases,  205 II,  844 

,  1905,  4  Can.  Ry.  Cases, 

284 II,  847 

Texas  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Abilene 

Cotton  Oil   Co.,   1907,  204 

U.  S.  426 II,  123;  VII,  777 

V.  Cisco  Oil  Mill,    1907, 

204  U.  S.  449 Ill,  599 

V.  Int.  Com.  Com.,   1896, 


162  U.  S.  197....I,  216,  221 ;  II,  244 
V.  Mugg,  1906.  202  U.  S. 


242. ..I,  305;  II,  123;  III,  56, 

571;  IV,  777;  VI,  435 
The  Mills  &  Le  Claire  L.  Co. 

V.  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co., 

1896,  94  Wis.  336 1,  172 

Thomas  v.  Railroad  Co.,  1879, 

lOlU.  S.  71 1,  636 

Thompson-Houston  Co.  v.  Si- 
mon, 1890, 20  Ore.  60 1,  182 

Thurston  v.  Huston,  1904,  123 
Iowa  157;  98  N.  W.  Rep. 
637 VII,  723,  724-725 

Tighe  et  al.  v.  Clinton  Tel.  Co., 

1908,  3  W.R.  C.R.  117..: 

IV,  306;  V,  239 

Tinkham  v.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co. 
et  al.,  1909,  4  W.  R.  C.  R. 
329 VI,  200 


Cases  Cited 


733 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Toledo  A.  A.  &  N.  M.  R.  Co. 

V.  D.  L.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  1886, 

62  Mich.  564 II,  373,  374,  377 

Town  of  Elcho  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  1914,  14  W.  R.  C.  R. 

796 XV,  302,  610 

Town  of  Fitchburg  v.  I.  C.  R. 

Co.,  1913,  13  W.  R.  C.  R. 

403 XIII,  611 

Town  of  Gillett  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R. 

535 XV,  302 

Town  of  Madison  v.  I.  C.  R. 

Co.,  1914,  13  W.  R.  C.  R. 

608 XV,  108 

Town  of  Richmond  v.  W.  &  N. 

R.  Co.,  1914,  14W.  R.  C.  R. 

546 XV,  309 

Town  of  Superior  v.  G.  N.  R. 

Co.,  1914,  15  W.  R.  C.  R. 

300 XV,  610 

Traders  &  T.  U.  v.  P.  &  R.  R. 

Co.,  1887,  1  I.  C.  C.  R.  122 

II,  241 

Transportation  Co.  v.  Parkers- 
burg,   1882,   107  U.   S.   691 

XV,  821 

Trostel  &  Sons  v.  W.  C.  R.  Co., 

1908,  2  W.  R.  C.  R.  761.  Ill,  64 
Twenty    Second    Ward    Adv. 

Assn.  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 

Co.,  1914,  14  W.  R.  C.  R. 

788 XV,  593,  393 

Ulmer  v.  L.  R.  R.  Co.,  1904, 

36  Am.  &  E.  R.  Cases,  724..I,  759 
Union  Lime   Co.  v.   Railroad 

Commission,  1911,  144  Wis. 

523 VII,  146 

Union  P.  R.  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  1886, 

117U.  S.  355 I,  215 

Union    Tel.    Co.    v.    Western 

Crawford  Co.  F.  M.  Tel.  Co. 

et  al.,  1912,  11  W.  R.  C.  R. 

42 XII,    141;   XIV,  569 

Union  Trust  Co.  v.  A.  T.  &  S. 

F.  R.  Co.,  1894,  64  Fed.  992 

XIV,  273 

United  Factories  v.  G.  T.  R. 

Co.,  1904,  3  Can.  Ry.  Cases 

424 IL  242 

United  States  v.  Col.  &  N.  W. 
R.  Co.,  1907,  157  Fed.  321 
IV,  474;  VI,     70 

V.   Comerford,   1885,  25 

Fed.  902... I,  116 

V.    Freight   Association, 

1896,  166  U!  S.  290 XV,  798 

V.  Geddes,  1904,  131  Fed.  ' 


452 IV,  474 


Vol.  and  Pages 

United  States  v.  Joint  Traffic 

Assn.,  1898,  171  U.  S.  .505.... 

I^    79^    335 

— ^' '  v.' ' '  Morsman, '  "1890,   42 

Fed.  448 Ill,  573 

V.  Open  Boat,  1828,  27 


Fed.  Cas.346 Ill,  506 

—  V.  U.  P.  R.  Co.,  1875,  91 

U.  S.  72 1,  181 

V.  Union  Stock  Yards  Co., 


1908,  161   Fed.  919 VI,     71 

V.  Williams,  1880,  3  Fed. 

484 .T,  116 

United  States  Express  Co.  V. 
State,  1905,  164  Ind.  196.... 
111,573,574 

Valvoline  Oil  Co.  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.  et  al.,  1908,  2  W.  R. 

C.  R.  232....III,  364, 365;  VII,  6 
Van  Patten  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P. 

R.  Co.,  1897,  81  Fed.  545.. II,  123 
Vaudreuil  Realty  Co.  v.  C.  St. 

P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  1911,  6 

W.  R.  C.  R.  661 VII,  743,  744 

Veneer  Co.  v.  Urbana  W.  Wks. 

1909,  174  Fed.  348 VI,  120 

Vicksburg  Water  Wks.  Co.  v. 

Vicksburg,  1902,  185  U.  S. 

65  XV,  799 

Vidai  Y.  Philadeiphia,  1 844,  2 

Howard  127;  43  U.  S.  127 

XV,  798 

Village  of  East  Milw.  v.  T.  M. 

E.  R.  &  L.  Co.  et  al.,  1912, 

10  W.  R.  C.  R.  358..XV,  733,  751 
Village  of  Spencer  v.  M.  St.  P. 

&  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.,  1913,  12 

W.  R.  C.  R.  525 XIV,  108 

Von  Berg  et  al.  v.  C.  M.  &  St. 

P.  R.  Co.,  1914,  14  W.  R.  C. 

R.  553 XV,  312 

Wachsmuth  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Bay- 
field Transfer  R.  Co.,  1914, 

14   W.    R.    C.    R.    253 

XIV,  601,  602 

Walla  Walla  v.  Walla  Walla 
Water  Co.,  1898,  172  U.  S.  1 

XV    799 

Waish'v.  a  Mr&st'ip.  r! 

Co.,  1877,  42  Wis.  23.  .VIII,  531 
Washburn  v.  Washburn  Water 

Wks.    Co.,    1904,    120  Wis. 

575 XV.  629 

Waszkiewicz  v.  T.    M.  E.  R. 

&  L.  Co.,  1911,  147  Wis.  422 

XV,  661 

Water    Dist.    v.    Water    Co., 

1904,  99  Me.  371 

V,  223,  224,  278 


734 


Cases  Cited 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Water  Power  Cases,  1912,  148 

Wis.  124 X,  382 

Waukesha  Lime  &  Stone  Co.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1913,  13  W.  R.  C.  R.  368... 

: XV,  479 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co. 

etal.,  1912,  9W.R.  C.  R.  87, 

347 IX,  348;  X,  439; 

XI,  98,  100,  419,  420,  423, 
XIII,  40,  369,  370,  380,  381, 
382,  383,  472;  XV,  480,  485, 

486,  649 
V. ,  1913,  25  I.  C.  C. 


R.515... XV,  523 

—  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et 
al.,  1913,  11  W.  R.  C.  R.  419 

XIII,     38 

— ^v.  M.  St.  P.  &S.  S.  M.  R. 


Co.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R.  167 

XIII,  384 

1914,  13  W.  R. 


C.  R.  471.LXV,  162;  XIV, 

579,  718,  719,  720 
Waupaca  El.  Lt.  &  R.  Co.  v.  T. 

M.  E.  R.  &L.  Co.,  1901,  112 

Wis.  469 VIII,  676 

Wausau    Advancement    Assn. 

V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1913, 

12W.  R.  C.  R.  438. 

XIII,  468,  469,  470 

-. V.  ,  1914,  13  W.  R. 

C.R.772 XIII,  699 

V.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 


1914,  13  W.  R.  C.  R.  527. 

XIV,  508,  509 

Wausau  Box  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  C. 

&  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1909,  4  W. 

R.  C.  R.  335.., IV,  405,  459 

V. ,  1910,  4  W.  R.  C. 

R.459 XIV,  719 

V.  C.  M.&St.  P.  R.  Co., 


1910,  4  W.  R.  C.  R.  457. 

XIV,  719 

Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.  v.  C. 
M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9 
W.  R.  C.  R.  400. ..XIII,  690,  692 

Wauwatosa,  Town  of,  v.  C.  & 
N.  W.  R.  Co.,  1911,  7  W. 
R.  C.  R.  737 IX,  270,  273 

Webb  Produce  Co.  v.  C.  &  N, 
W.  R.  Co.,  1908,  3  W.  R.  C. 
R.32....III,  2-3,  31,336,  337, 

338,  339;  VI,  636 

Weber  et  al.  v.  City  of  Lake 
Mills,  1913,  12  W.  R.  C.  R. 
577 .^. ...XIV,  211 

Weems  Steamboat  Co.  v. 
People's  Steamboat  '  Co., 
1905,  141  Fed.  454 XV,  821 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Weil  V.  Express  Co.,  1868,  7 
Phila.  88 Ill,  566 

Weld  V.  G.  &  £l.  Lt.  Com- 
missioners, 1908,  197  Mass. 
556 IX,  556 

Weldon  v.  Missouri,  1875,  91 
U.  S.  275 I,  322 

Wellman  v.  R.  Connor  Co., 
Co.,  1902,  115  Wis.  617 1,  757 

Western  Indiana  Constr.  Co.  v. 
C.  M,.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  1911, 
8  W.  R.  C.  R.  309 XI,  277 

Western  Union  Teleg.  Co.  v. 
Goddin,  1897,  94  Va.  513, 
Ill,  574 

V.  James,  1896,  162  U.  S. 

650 1,  645;  III,  572,  574 

V.  Pendleton,  1887,  122 

U.  S.  347 1,  323 

V.  Powell,  1897,  94  Va. 

268 Ill,  574 

Westport,  town  of,  v.  C.  &  N. 

W.  R.  Co.,  1912,  9  W.  R.  C. 

R.  218 XIV,  178 

West  Texas  Fuel  Co.  v.  Texas 

&  Pac.  R.  Co.,  1909,  15  I. 

C.  C.  R.  443 VI,     71 

V. ,  1910,  17  I.  C.  C. 

R.491 VI,     71 

West  Va.  T.  C.  v.  O.  R.  P.  L. 

Co.,  1883,  22  W.  Va.  600..II,  847 
Weymouth  v.  Penobscot  Log. 

Driving  Co.,   1880,  71   Me. 

29  XV    791 

Whiting  v.'S.'&FrD.'L.  r! 

Co.,  1870,  25  Wis.  167 

I,  77,  330;  V,  421 

Wiemer  &  Rich  v.  C.&  N.  W. 

R.  Co.  et  al.,  1907,  12  I.  C. 

C.R.462 ..Ill,    61 

Wiggins  Ferry  Co.  v.  C.  &  A. 

R.  Co.,  1878,    5  Mo.  App. 

347 I,  760 

Wilcox  et  al.  v.  Consolidated 

Gas  Co.,  1909,  212  U.  S.  19 

V,  225;  X,  116 

Wiley  V.  Inhabitants  of  Athol, 

1890,  150  Mass.  426  ...VIII,  679 
Wilkes-Barre  v.  Spring  Brook 

W.  Co.  et  al.,  1899,  4  Lack. 

(Pa.)  Leg.  News.  367 

V,   220,  278 

Williams  v.  Mutual  Gas  Co., 

1884,  52  Mich.  499 IV,  157 

Wills  V.   Carpenter,   1891,  75 

Maryland  80 VII,  723 

Wilton,  Town  of,  v.  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co.,  1913,  IIW.  R.  C.  R. 

598.. XII,  361 

Winneconne    v.    Winneconne, 

1904,  122  Wis.  348 ....II,  118 


Cases  Cited 


735 


Vol.  and  Pages 

Winser  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  &  A.  R. 
Co.,  1892,  52  Fed.  716 II,  121 

Winter  v.  La  Crosse  Tel.  Co. 
et  al.,  1913,  11  W.  R.  C.  R. 
748....XIV,533,537,539;XV,     37 

V. ,  1914, 15  W.  R.  C. 

R.36 XV,  380 

Wisconsin  Box  Co.  et  al.  v.  C. 
M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  et  al., 
1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  605, 
...  IV,  257,  272,  325,  328,  336, 
338,  358,  405,  457,  460,  462, 
464,  768;  VIII,  13;  XIII,  532,  533 

V. ,  1910,  4  W.  R.  C. 

R.768 XIV,  719 

Wisconsin  Coal  Co.  v.  W.  C. 
R.  Co.,  1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R. 
339 Ill,  424 

Wisconsin  Lakes  Ice  &  Cartage 
Co.  V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

1912,  9  W.  R.  C.  R.  101 

XI,  62,  63,  171 

Wisconsin  M.  &  P.  R.  Co.  v. 
Jacobsen,  1900, 179  U.  S.  287 
1,84,335,  595 

Wis.  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  v. 
C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1911,  6  W.  R.  C.  R.  436. IX,  398 

Wis.  Retail  Lbr.  Dealers  Assn. 
V.  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co.  et  al., 
1909,  3  W.  R.  C.  R.  471....V, 
716,  718,  719;  VI,  529;  VII, 
55;  VIII,  33,  127;  XIII,  740; 

XIV,  824 

Wis.  Tel.  Co.  V.  City  of  Green 
Bay,  1908,3W.  R.  C.  R.  147 
XI,  301 

V.  City  of  La  Crosse,  1911, 

7  W.  R.  C.  R.  435..XI,  300,  303 


Vol.  and  Pages 
Wis.  Tel.   Co.  V.  Milw.  1905, 

126   Wis.  1 II,   542 

Wltbeck  V.   Holland,   1870,  5 

Barb  (N.  Y.)  443 Ill,  566 

V. ,  1871,  45  N.  Y.  13 

Ill,  562,  566 

Wood  V.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co., 

1871,  27  Wis.  541 IV,  474 

W^orcester  City  v.  Street  Ry. 

Co.,  1905,  196  U.  S.  539..XV,  800 
Worcester  El.  Lt.  Co.  Appeal 

of,  1893,  9  Mass.  G.  &  El. 

Lt.  Comm.  R.  23 IX,  554-555 

Wright  V.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L. 

Co.,  1897,  95  Wis.  29  I,  637,  754 
Wright  Lbr.  Co:  v.  C.  M.  &  St. 

P.  R.  Co.,  1910,  4  W.  R.  C. 

R.  770 VI,  206;  VIII,     79 

Wyatt  V.   L.  &  W.   Irr.   Co., 

1892,  29  Pac.  906 1,  838 

Yellow  River  Impr.  Co.  v. 
Wood  Co.  et  al.,  1892,  81 
Wis.  554 XV,    629,  630 

York  &  North  Midland  Ry. 
Co.  V.  Queen,  1853,  1  El.  & 
B1.858 V,  423 

Younkin  v.  M.  L.  H.  &  T.  Co., 
1901,  120  Wis.  477 XV,  661 

Young  V.  R.  R.  Co.,  1889,  33 
Mo.  App.  509 II,  122 

Zehren  v.  T.  M.  E.  R.  &  L.  Co., 

1898,  99  W^is.  83 XV,  660 

Zinc  Carbonate  Co.  v.  First 
Nat'l   Bank   of   ShuUsburg, 

1899,  103  Wis.  131 

II,  689;  IV,  349 


LOCALITIES  INDEX 


LOCALITIES  INDEX 


A 

Vol.  and  Page 
Abbottsford  and  Curtiss  to  Menasha,  rates  on  wood  bolts, 

legality  of  ante-dated  tariff I  108 

Abbottsford,  train  and  station  facilities VI  624 

Ablemans  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  granite 

blocks XIII  669,  671 

,  North  Freedom  and  Reedsburg  to  Basco,  joint  rates 

on  grain,  establishment  of I  599 

Abrams,  adequacy  of  station  facilities  and  train  service XIV  780 

Adams,  telephone  utility,  relocation  of  exchange XV  530 

Addison,   town  of,  telephone  utility,   certificate  of  public 

convenience  and  necessity XIV  766 

Adell  to  Sheboygan,  joint  rates  on  barley  established  be- 
tween the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV^  757 

Afton,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of X'V' jj  404 

Alaska  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  ij^^  419 

Albany,  (first  highway  north  of)  railroad  crossing,  protec- 

tection  of r X  483 

,  train  service IX  389 

Albertville  (First  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  254 

,  Chippewa  Co.,  railroad,  diversion  of  line VII  463 

Algonac  to  Sheboygan,  refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

Aliens  Grove,  train  service  and  station  facilities,  adequacy  of  XV  18 

Allenton,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of X  615 

■ ,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  certificate  of  public  con- 
venience and  necessity XIV  766 

Allen  ville,  Winnebago  county,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of.  .XI 1 1  421 

Allis,  Milwaukee,  station  facilities IV  161 

Allouez  from  Connor's  Point  (Superior),  refund  on  shipment 

of  lumber II  126 

Alma,  electric  rates,  readjustment  of II  144 

Alma  Center,  station  facilities,  stock  scales II  102 

Almena,  town  of,  (Barron's  crossing),  relocation  of  highway, 

public  necessity  of XIV  128 

,  (1  mile  west  of)  (Strobel  crossing),  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of XI  621 

to  Osceola,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

from  Superior,  refund  on  shipment  of  salt VI  499 

24 


738  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Almena,- station  facilities XII  694 

,  train  service IV  467 

Altoona,  electric  rates,  flaming  arc  lamps IX  500 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of X  517 

Amery  to  Osceola,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

from  Superior,  refund  on  shipment  of  salt VI  499 

,  station  facilities VIII  305 

Amherst,  town  of  (Bishop  crossing,  ^  mile  west  of  Amherst 

Jet.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XV  494 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  bags IX  182 

Anson,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  lines XIV  510 

Antigo  to  Crandon,  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of I  611 

(Heinemann's  Mill),  to  Port  Washington  and  South 

Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  slabs  and  slabwood...  VI  222 

,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  329 

-^ — ,  water  rates  and  service Ill  623 

,  water  utility,  adequacy  of  service II  627 

,  water  utility,  municipal  acquisition XIII  157 

Apollonia,  Rusk  county,  station  facilities VI  526 

: ,  Rusk  county,  train  service,  adequacy  of XIII  390 

Apple  River,  St.  Croix  county,  franchise  to  construct  water 

power  dam XV  712 

Appleton,  proposed  interurban  line,  certificates  of  public 

convenience  and  necessity ;.....  V  466 

and  Milwaukee    (between)   certificate   of  public   con- 
venience and  necessity II  580 

,  East,  Newberry  st.,  railroad  crossings,  separation  of 

grades IX  322 

,  East  Walter  ave.,   railroad  crossings,  separation  of 

grades ' IX  322 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  refund  on  ship- 
ment of  logs  and  wood XI  144 

from  Wis.  points   (northern  Wis.),  refund  on  shipments 

of  pulp  wood VI  175 

from  Arbor  Vitae,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber VI  209 

— — ,  Combined  Locks  and  Kimberly,  from  Itasca,  rates 

on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  250 

from  Green  Bay,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

from  Green  Bay,  coke,  refund  on  shipment IV  171 

from  Hazelhurst,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber VI  209 

from  Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis.,  group  rates  on  coal.  VI  436 

from  Manitowoc,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

from  Mattoon  Railway  points,  joint  rates V  531 

from  Milwaukee,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

from  Sheboygan,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

,  municipal  acquisition  of  water  works VI  97 

,  water  rates  and  service V  215 

Arbor  Vitae  to  Appleton,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber VI  209 

to  Blue  Mounds,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  21 


Localities  Index  739 


Vol.  and  Page 

Arbor  Vitae  to  Vesper,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  21 

Arcadia,  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  216 

Arena,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XV  390 

Argyle,  telephone  rates VI  616 

Arkansas,  electric  rates VI  334 

Armstrong  Creek  from  Rhinelander,  refund  on  shipments  of 

car  stakes XIII  84 

Arpin  from  Deans  Spur,  rates  on  shipments  of  fuel  wood, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  752 

to  Neenah,  rates  on  shipments  of  fuel  wood  and  fence 

posts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  707 

Ashippun,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  119 

Ashland  county  (sec.  32,  Ts.  41,  north  of  R.  1,  east),  railroad 

crossing,  restoration  and  protection  of I  307 

Ashland  from  Wis.  points  on  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.,  concen- 
tration rates  on  wood,  reasonableness  of I  16 

from  Wis.  points  on  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.,. rates  on 

logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  542 

to  Berlin,  rates  on  shipments  of  lumber,  reasonableness 

of,  and  refund XIV  823 

from  Birnamwood  and   Clintonville,   refund  on  ship- 
ments of  potatoes VI  667 

and  Eau  Claire,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of I  767 

from ,  refund  on  shipment  of  corn IV  331 

to ,  rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of II  129 

to  Hayward,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  14 

from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipment  of  paper VIII  78 

from  Marion,  refund  on  shipment  of  potatoes VI  667 

from  Peterson's  Spur,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  193 

to  Washburn,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood  bolts IV  465 

to  Webster,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  701 

,  station  facihties,  use  of  railroad  company's  private 

dock  for  public  convenience XV  816 

,  telephone  rates IX  489 

,  water  rates IV  273 

,  water  rates  and  service XIV,      1,  721 

Athens  to  Goodrich,  operation  of  branch  railroad IV  455 

Athens  to  Viroqua,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  447 

and  Dorchester,  telephone  toll  rates  between Ill  586 

and  Stetsonville,  telephone  toll  rates  between Ill  586 

to  Goodrich  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of I  739 

Atkins  and  Gagen  (Siding  234  between)  to  Crandon,  refund 

on  shipment  of  logs IX  57 

Augusta  from  Superior,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  593 

^,  telephone  rates II  105 


740  Localities  Index 


B 

Vol.  and  Page 

Babcock,  train  service VI  534 

Bagdad  to  Rothschild,  establishment  of  joint  rates  and  re- 
fund on  shipment  of  pulp  wood IX  127 

Bagley  Jet.  to  Brown's  Spur  to  Peshtigo,  reasonableness  of 

rates  on  logs,  and  refund XV  43 

from  Buda,  Hanley,  Jarvis,  Carlton,  and  Sycamore, 

reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  piling XI  108 

Bain  station,   (Spring  Brook  road)  railroad  crossing,  pro- 
tection of XI  557 

Baldwin,  electric  rates XV  409 

(Hammond  road  crossing),  railroad  crossing,  protection 

of XIII  76 

from  Superior,  Eau  Claire  and  other  points  in  N.  W. 


Wis.  on  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness 

of : I  767 

Bard  well  station,  (two  miles  west  of)  railroad  grade  crossing, 

protection  of VIII  471 

,  train  servdce  and  station  faciUties,  adequacy  of XV  18 

Barron  (sec.  line  33^  miles  south),  railroad  crossing,  separa- 
tion of  grades .' XII  686 

Barton  from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

— --  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Basco,   from  North  Freedom,   Ablemans  and  Reedsburg, 

joint  rates  on  grain,  establishment  of I  599 

Bayfield,  town  of,  Bayfield  Co.,  electric  and  water  service. ...XI  686 

from  Sunny  side,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of,  and 

minimum  weight XIV  253,  601 

to  Washburn,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of,  and  re- 
fund  XIV  289 

,  free  storage  period,  extension  of XIV  763 

Bear  Trap,  Bolton,  and  intermediate  stations,  from  Marsh- 
field,  Wausau,  and  intermediate  stations,  reasonableness 

of  rates  on  hay,  and  refunds  on  shipment XII  433 

Beaver  to  Racine,  refund  on  shipment  of  slabs VI  199 

Beaver  Dam,  repairs  on  dam,  necessity  for,  opinion  of  Com- 
mission on  request  of  company IX  331 

(Beaver  Dam  river),  navigable  waters,  obstructions  in 

stream XIV  474 

,  town  of.  Dodge  county,  railroad  crossing,  separation  of 

grades,  overhead  bridge IX  "471 

,  (1 H  miles  east  of)  (Dutchman  crossing),  railroad  cross- 
ing, protection  of XI  662 

,  Juneau-Leipsic  road,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of IX  381 

,  (Maple  ave.  Third  st.,  Mackie  st.  and  High  st.),  rail- 
road crossing,  protection  of X  474 

,  Spring  St.,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of IX  523 


Localities  Index  741 


Vol,  and  Page 

Beaver  Dam,  water  rates  and  service X  661 

to  Racine  Jet.,  rates  on  castings,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund II  703 

from   Milwaukee,    refund   on   shipment   of   foundry 

patterns..... VIII  325 

from  Weyerhauser,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction 

of  joint  rates V  655 

,  municipal  acquisition  of  water  utility XIII  169 

Beaver  Spur  to  Washburn,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  bolts, 

and  refund.....'.. XV  294 

Beetown,  telephone  rates  and  service XIII  540 

,  telephone  utihties,  interference  of  high  voltagQ  trans- 
mission lines XV  622 

Beldenville  to  Eau  Claire,  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness 

of  and  refund ." II  131 

Belgium  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Belle  Plaine,  station  facihties,  adequacy  of XIII  418 

Belleville  from  Madison,  railway  car  service,  refrigerator 

cars : IX  240 

Belhnger  and  Oilman  (siding  between)  to  Stanley,  refund  on 

shipment  of  posts IX  64 

Beloit,  electric,  gas  and  water  rates  and  service VII  187 

from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and 

reduction  of  joint  rates V      647,    655 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  531 

,  telephone  toll  rates V  300 

,  water  mains,  extension  of 1X250;  V  459,  617 

Bennett  to  Superior,  rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of II  705 

Benton  from  Montfort  Jet.,  train  service,  adequacy  of X  500 

Bergen,   telephone   utilities,   physical  connection   and   toll 

rates X  598 

,  telephone  utihties,  physical  connection XIII  250 

Berlin,  demurrage  chargfes  and  terminal  facilities VI  14 

,  gas,  electric  and  heating  rates XV  121 

,  heating  utilities,  thermostats XV  468 

from  Ashland,  rates  on  shipments  of  lumber,  reason- 
ableness of,  and  refund XIV  823 

from  La  Crosse,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

from  Wausaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  706 

Berry  ville  from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime.... XI 1 1  38 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Bibon  to  Cumberland,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund II  700 

or  Iron  River  from  Lake  Nebagamon  (between)  and 

other  points  from  Winnebijou  and  Campbell's  Mill,  train 

service,  adequacy  of XV  599 

Big  Falls  and  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.,  except  Hunt- 
ing, establishment  of  joint  rates VIII  556 

Birchwood  from  Edgewater,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  482 


742  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Birchwood  from  Frederic,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  '  643 

to  Kewaunee,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IV  109 

from  Raddison,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs V  441 

from  Winter,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IV  106 

Birnamwood  to  Ashland,  refund  on  shipment  of  potatoes VI  667 

Black  Creek  from  Milwaukee,  railroad  freight  service XIII  322 

from  Crandon  and  Monico,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs.  VII I  544 

from  Wis.  points  (Northern  Wis.)  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R. 

reduction  of  joint  rates VIII  544 

from  Milwaukee,  train  service,  adequacy  of IX  530 

Black  Earth,  telephone  service IV  111 

and  Mazomanie,- telephone  service  between Ill  514 

Black  River  Falls  to  Vaudreuil,  railroad  construction,  certifi- 
cate of  public  convenience  and  necessity,  application  for, 

dismissed , VII  741 

and  Waukesha,  rates  on  shipment  of  ground  limestone, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  579 

— —  from  Vaudreuil,  switch  connections VI  661 

Blanchardville  to  Wis.  points  on  the  Mineral  Point  division 
of  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  and  on  the  I.  C.  lines,  rates  on 

wagons IX  509 

Bloomer,  electric  rates  and  service VI  506 

,  refusal  of  electric  service XV  612 

,  right  of  shipper  to  switching  service Ill  42 

,  telephone  rates IV  259 

Blooming   Grove,   baggage,    articles   constituting   personal 

baggage VIII  311 

,  town  of,  (Hanchette  crossing,  2%  miles  southeast  of 

Madison),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XV  45 

Blue  Mounds  from  Arbor  Vitae,  refund  on  shipment  of 

lumber VI     ,  21 

to  Cudahy  and  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of 

live  stock IX  74 

Blue  River  to  Richland  Center,  refund  on  shipment  of  rye VI  178 

Boehms  to  Milwaukee  and  Sheboygan,  refund  on  shipment 

of  tanbark XI  537 

Bolton,  Bear  Trap,  and  intermediate  stations,  from  Marsh- 
ficld,  Wausau  and  intermediate  stations,  reasonableness 

of  rates  on  hay,  and  refunds  on  shipments XII  433 

Boscobel,  (Church  and  Walnut  streets.  Wis.  ave.  and  Park 

St.)  railroad  crossings,  protection  of X  423 

,  (Walnut  street)  (Wis.  ave.)   railroad  crossing,  protec- 
tion of XV  296 

;  station  facilities,  adequacy  of...: XV  403 

-,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection  and  reasonable- 


ness of  rates XI  32 

Bowler  to  Burlington,  refund  on  shipment  of  posts IV  329 

,  telephone  rates VII  426 

Boyd  from  Hannibal,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  40 


Localities  Index  743 


'  'Vol.  and  Page 

Bradley  and  Manson  to  HealTord  Jet.  and  Merrill,  rates  on 

shipment  of  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  805 

Brantwood,  Me  Cord  and  Tripoli  to  Rhinelander,  reason- 
ableness of  rates  on  wood,  and  refund XV  171 

,  train  ser\dce,  adequacy  of X  490 

Bridgeport,  telephone  utility,  checking  station,  establish- 
ment of XIV   k       568 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  42 

and  Eastman  (between),  telephone  rates XII  140 

and  Prairie  du  Chien  (between),  telephone  rates XII  140 

Brigham,  town  of,  (Iowa  county),  railroad  crossing,  separa- 
tion of  grades II  70 

Brighton  Beach  and  Waverly  Beach  (between),  near  Lake 

Winnebago,  stopping  of  interurban  cars XIV  811 

Brill,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIII  625 

Brodhead,  electric  utilities,  standards  of  service X  630 

,  electric  utility,  municipal  acquisition  of XII  88 

,  telephone  rates II  113;  1X383 

,  train  service IX  389 

Brokaw  from  Wis.  points  on  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.,  refund  on 

shipment  of  wood XI  417 

from  Rothschild,  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp IX  400 

from  Rothschild,  refund. on  shipments  of  ground  wood 

pulp XIII  690 

Brooklyn,  telephone  rates VI  573 

and  Milwaukee,  interurban  rates  and  car  service  be- 
tween  VIII  734 

to  Milwaukee,  interurban  car  service IX..  534 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Brown's  Spur  to  Bagley  Jet.  and  Peshtigo,  reasonableness  of 

rates  on  logs,  and  refund XV     -  43 

Brown  town,  electric  rates,  minimum  charges XIV  560 

Bruce,  electric  rates,  classification  of  moving  picture  arc IX  474 

Buda  to  Bagley  Jet.  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  ship- 
ment of  piling XI  108 

Buffalo,  town  of,  Marquette  Co.,  Graham's  crossing,  railroad 

crossing,  protection  of IX  538 

Bunkers^  to  Sheboygan,  refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

Burke,  station  facilities XII  366 

Burkhart,  (about  two  and  one-half  miles  northeast  of)  rail- 
road crossing,  protection  of XI  737 

Burlington  from  Wis.  points  on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R. 

refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  492 

from  Bowler,  refund  on  shipment  of  posts IV  329 

from  Weyerhauser,  refund  on   shipments   of   lumber 

and  reduction  of  joint  rates V  663 

Buswell  to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs VI  217 

Butternut  to  Glover,  rates  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  761 


744 Localities  Index        

Vol.  and  Page 
Butternut  to  Kimberly,  cancellation  of  joint  trainload  rates 

on  pulp  wood '. VIII  105 

to  Rockford,  111.,  refund  on  shipment  of  lunjber,  legality 

of I  300 

,  telephone  rates XV  180 

Buttons  Bay  (Walworth  county),  switch  connections,  estab- 
lishment of II  431 

Byron  (300  ft.  east  of),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  95 

c 

Cadott  (Main  st.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XV  596 

Caledonia  and  Racine  (between),  interurban  rates,  commu- 
tation tickets XIII  475 

,  town  of,  interurban  railway  crossing,  protection  of X  420 

• ,  town  of  (Three  Mile  road),  interurban  railway  crossing, 

protection  of XII  386 

-^ — ,  town  of,  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades X  618 

• ,  town  of,   (Franksville  road)  (Three  Mile  road),  rail- 
road crossing,  protection  of .XI  564 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

,  station  facilities VIII  582 

,    town   of,    (Sheriff's    Crossing),    switch   connections, 

adequacy  of I  716 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of XIII  732;  XIV  581 

Calhoun  and  Milwaukee  (between),  interurban  rates,  reason- 
ableness of XIII  475 

and  West  Allis  (between),  interurban  rates,  reason- 
ableness of XIII  475 

-,  train  service,  adequacy  of XV  638 


Calvary  to  Milwaukee,  through  Fond  du  Lac,  refund  on 

shipment  of  live  stock VIII..        532 

Calvert  (crossing  near),   railroad  grade  crossing,  protection 

of VIII  519 

,  (Mormon  Coulee  road)  railroad  crossing,  protection  of  ..XI  159 

Cambria,   town   of   Courtland,    (Railroad   street)   railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XII  501 

,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  92 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  499 

Cameron,  electric  rates VI  717 

Campbell,  town  of    (North  Salem  road),  }4  niile  north  of 

Grand  Crossing,  railroad  crossing,  installation  of XV  -21 

Campbell's  Mill,  Winnebijou  and  other  points  between  Lake 
Nebagamon  to  Iron  River  or  Bibon,  train  service,  ade- 
quacy of XV  599 

Camp  Douglas,  (2  miles  east  of),  railroad  crossings,  protec- 
tion of IX  328 

,   (2  miles  east),   (Orange  crossing),  railroad  crossing, 

elimination  of XII  524 


Localities  Index  745 


Vol.  and  Page 

Camp  Douglas,  telephone  rates  and  service > VIII  399 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XII  213 

,  train  schedules,   adjustment  of  between  connecting 

carriers  to  provide  for  interchange  of  traffic IV  238 

Campia  to  Rice  Lake,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs X  564 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of '. X  430 

Carlton  to  Bagley  Jet.,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  ship- 
ment of  piling XI  108 

Carson  and  Van  Buskirk  (between)  to  Superior,  joint  rates 

on  logs XIV  703 

Carryville  from  Fairchild,  railroad  construction,  certificate 

of  public  convenience  and  necessity,  granted VII  755 

Cascade,  telephone  rates XIV  808 

Casco,  telephone  rates IX  760 

Cashton,    electric   utility,    certificate  ,of  convenience   and 

necessity II  677 

,  municipal  acquisition  of  electric  plant ...Ill  67 

from  Milwaukee,  agricultural  implements,  refund  on 

shipment Ill  114 

,  water  rates '...XI  410 

Cassville    (highway   near),   relocation   of  highway,   public 

necessity  of '. XIII  86 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of,  speed  of  trains II  348 

Catawba  to  Oshkosh,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood VI  669 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of I  53 

Cazenovia  from  and  to  Wis.  points,  joint  rates VI  693 

to  Ft.  Atkinson,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  219 

— : — ,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XIV  655 

Cecil,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection IX  189 

Cedarburg,  on  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

,  telephone  rates , VII  428 

Cedar  Falls,  Oneida  county,  from  Hixon,  operation  of  rail- 
road line,  continuation  of XII  223 

Cedar  Grove,  Sheboygan  county,  (Green  Bay  road),  inter- 
urban railway  crossing,  protection  of XII  712 

Cedarville  to  Green  Bay,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs...- Ill  386 

Charme,  switch  connections,  establishment  of II  79 

Chase,  town  of,  Oconto  county,  telephone  service,  with- 
drawal of X  558 

Chelsea  from  Rib  Lake,  railroad  rates VII  401 

Cheney,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of I  254 

Chetek,  electric  rates II  662;  XI  227 

Chili  to  Granton,  refund  on  shipments  of  bolts Ill  518 

Chilton,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

,  electric  service,  adequacy  of ...II  326 

,  Hay  ton,  Kiel,  New  Holstein  from  Manitowoc,  joint 

rates  on  barley,  reasonableness  of I  69 


746  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Chilton,  NewHolstein,  Kiel,  Elkhart,  from  Manitowoc,  joint 

rates,  establishment  of I  19 

to  Sheboygan,  joint  rates  on  barley  established  be- 
tween the  d  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

,  telephone  rates V  212 

Chippewa  Falls,  electric  rates,  flaming  arc  lamps IX  500 

,  electric,  gas  and  water  rates V  302 

from  Lublin,  fates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund  II  607 

,  Menomonee  Falls  and  Janesville  from  Wis.  points, 

rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of I  258 

Clark  county,  telephone  rates XV  822 

Clay  Banks,  town  of.  Door  county,  telephone  rates,  reason- 
ableness of XI  697 

Clear  Lake  to  Itasca,  double  minimum  on  mixed  carloads  of 

grains  and  seeds ....V  711 

Cleveland,  town  of,    (Rock  crossing,  about  2  miles  north  of 

Stratford)  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIII  729 

Clifton,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  399 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XII  213 

Clinton,  telephone  rates Ill  117 

— — ,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIII  166 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection X  598;  XIII  250 

,  water  rates XI  496 

Clintonville  to  Ashland,  refund  on  shipment  of  potatoes VI  667 

from  Elmhurst,  refund  on  shipment  of  poles  and  posts...  IX  185 

from  Galloway,  concentration  rates  on  poles  and  posts.. X  461 

,  station  facilities XII  679 

,  telephone  rates,  increase  in XV  552 

Cobban  to  Eau  Claire,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  319 

to ,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  342 

to  Gilman,  refund  on  shipments  of  bolts XII  134 

— — ,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of X  383 

Cochrane,  train  service VIII  242 

Colby,  from  Unity,  reasonableness  of  rates,  on  logs,  and  re- 
fund  : : XV  469 

Coleman,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  720 

Colfax,  distribution  of  cars  and  service XIV  86 

to  Madison,  refund  on  shipments  of  stone  and  establish- 
ment of  joint  rates V  287 

to  Madison,  refund  on  shipments  of  stone V  635 

Colgate  (crossing  1}4  miles  north),  railroad  crossing,  pro- 
tection of XIII  623 

Coloma,  telephone  rates XIV  594 

Columbia,  (1800  feet  east  of),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of. XI  79 
—^ —  Station,  point  east  of  railroad  grade  crossing,  protection 

of VIII  733 

,  or  Wedges  Creek  Jet.  to  "end  of  track"  at  Wedges 


Creek  gravel  pit,  refund  on  shipment  of  construction 

material IV  412;  VI  173 


Localities  Index  747 


Vol.  and  Page 

Columbus,  electric  and  water  rates  and  water  service XI  449 

,  Birdsey  st.  railroad  crossing IX  576 

,  switching  rates,  and  service XII  137 

from  River  Falls,  rates  on  seed  peas,  reasonableness  of, 

and  refund XIV  97 

,  station  facilities....^ IX  576 

,  telephone  rates  and  service IV  414 

,  telephone  utilities,  adequacy  of  service XIV  793 

Combined  Locks,  Kimberly  and  Appleton  from  Itasca,  rates 

on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  250 

— ^,  from  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  refund  on 

shipments  of  logs  and  wood XI  144 

Connor's  Point  (Superior)  to  Allouez,  refund  on  shipment 

of  lumber II  126 

Corliss  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Corning  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  rye IX  62 

Cottage  Grove  and  McFarland,  telephone  toll  rates  between..III  452 
Cotten  to  Rhinelander,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber, 

and  refund XIV   754;   XV   473 

Cotter  to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs : IX  281 

Couderay  to  Superior,  rates  on  lumber... V  95 

County  Line  from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime. . XIII  38 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Courtland,  town,  of,  Columbia  county,  (Chestnut  crossing) 

railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  501 

Crandon  from  Antigo,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber I     .  611 

to  Black  Creek,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs VIII  544 

to  Eau  Claire,  refund  on  shipment  of  empty  fruit 

packages V  642 

from  Gagen  and  Atkins  (Siding  234  between),  refund 


on  shipment  of  logs * • IX  57 

—  to  Menasha,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber ^...IV  485 

—  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  400 

—  from  Neopit,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and  estab- 
lishment of  joint  rate VIII  247' 

—  to  Port  Washington,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood Ill  594 

from  Schofield,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber Ill  467 


Cross  Plains,  town  of  (Bollenbeck  crossing)  (John  $choepp 
crossing),  (Second  Schulenberg  crossing),  railroad  cross- 
ings, protection  of XIV  343 

Cuba  City  from  Manitowoc,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal....III  517 

from  Montfort  Jet.,  train  service,  adequacy  of X  500 

Cudahy  from  Blue  Mounds,  refund  on  shipment  of  live  stock  IX  74 
from  Janesville,  rates  on  shipments  of  grain,  reason- 
ableness of,  and  refund XIV  79 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal,  coke,  etc.VII  1 

and  Milwaukee  from  Wis.  points,  rates  on  live  stock, 

reasonableness  of I  778 

from  Silver  Springs,  reduction  of  rates  on  ice XI  171 


748  Localitiesllndex 


Vol.  and  Page 
Cudahy  from  Waukesha,  refund  on  shipment  of  gravel  and 

crushed  stone ." XIII  368 

Cumberland,  electric  rates IV  214 

Station,  (crossing  near),  railroad  grade  crossing,  pro-  16 

tection  of VIII  5 

from  Bibon,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  re- 
fund  : II  700 

to  De  Forest,  refund  on  shipment  of  vegetables VIII  504 

from  Grandview,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of,  and 

refund XIV  287;  XV  158 

from  Schneider's  Spur,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  645 

,  telephone  rates Ill  576 

Curtiss  and  Abbottsford  to  Menasha,  rates  on  wood  bolts, 

legality  of  ante-dated  tariff I  108 

,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIII  630 

and  Dorchester,  telephone  toll  rates  for  nonsubscribers.  Ill  586 

and  Stetsonville,  telephone  toll  rates  for  nonsubscribers. Ill  586 

,  train  service  an(J  station  facilities VI  655 

Cylon,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of XV  241 

,  village  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XV  241 

D 

Dallas  from  Superior,  refund  on  shipment  of  salt VI  499 

Dane  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain .Ill  391 

Darien,  adjustment  of  electric  rates XV  505 

DarUngton,  (dam  across  the  Pecatonica  river),  regulation 

of  level  and  flow  of  water X  .   38(1 

,  electric  rates XIII  344 

,  electric  rates  and  service  and  Tv^ater  rates V  397 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of  telephone  service XV  446 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection,  and  establish- 
ment of  uniform  service,  rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

,  water  rates  and  installation  of  meters ..VI        26,  408 


Davis  Spur  to  Green  Bay.  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  385 

Deans  Spur  to  Arpin,  rates  on  shipments  of  fuel  wood, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  752 

Deansville,  train  service  and  station  faciUties VI  504 

De  Forest  from  Dorchester,  joint  rates  on  slab  wood,  reason- 
ableness of II  95 

from  Cumberland,  refund  on  shipment  of  vegetables VIII  504 

De  Pere,  sale  of  interurban  commutation  tickets V  604 

De  Soto  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  781 

■ ,    station   facilities,    power   of    Commission   to   abate 

nuisances ) XII  567 

Deerfield,  (2  miles  west),  (Henjum  crossing),  railroad  cross- 
ing, protection  of XII  676 

from  Edgerton,  joint  rates  on  lumber V  714 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 


Localities  Index  749 


Vol.  and  Page 

Deerfield  and  vicinity,  telephone  rates XII  672 

Delafield,  certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity, 

electric  utility XV  497 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  397 

Delavan,  adjustment  of  electric  rates XV  505 

to  Fond  du  Lac,  ice  boat,  refund  on  shipment Ill  504 

,  station  facilities VI  565 

,  water  rates XII  148 

Denmark,  extension  of  free  storage  period XV  405 

Devils  Lake,  train  service,  adequacy  of XV  435 

Dewey,  station  facilities  and  train  service XII  363 

Diamond  Bluff,  stopping  of  limited  passenger  trains Ill  350 

• ,  train  service,  adequacy  of XIII  525 

Dill,  connecting  carriers,  track  connections IX,  509;  XV,  421 

,  train  service V,  176;  XV,  449 

Dodgeville,  electric  service,  adequacy  of XIII  642 

,  street  lighting  rates,  reasonableness  of,  adequacy  of 

service II  392 

(Division  st.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of IX,  367;  XI,  151 

(2%  miles  west  of),  Larson  crossing,  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of IX  520 

(214  miles  west  of),  Reeson  crossing,  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of IX  520 

from  Richland  Center,  empty  cheese  boxes,  refund  on 

shipment  and  establishment  of  joint  rates IV  450 

,  telephone  utilities,  reapportionment  of  toll  earnings...  XV  60 

and    Mineral    Point,    telephone    utilities,    physical 

connection IX  285 

,  train  schedules,  failure  of  carrier  to  keep  schedule  for 

connections IX  319 

and  Madison,  train  service  between VIII  320 

and  Martintown  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of    X  572 

Doering  to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  281 

Donald  from  Fountain  Spur,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs.... Ill  63 

Dooney's  Siding,  between  Dodge  and  Arcadia,  train  service. XII  116 

Door  county,  telephone  service,  adequacy  of XV  375 

Dorchester  to  De  Forest,  joint  rate  on  slab  wood,  reason- 
ableness of II  95 

,  telephone  rates Ill,  586;  IX,  497 

and  Athens  Curtiss,  telephone  toll  rates  between Ill  586 

and  Stetsonville,  telephone  toll  rates Ill  586 

Dousman  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime. XI  419 
Dover,  town  of,   Racine  county,   railroad  grade  crossing, 

protection  of VIII  513 

Dresser  Jet.  (1  mile  southeast  of),  railroad  crossing,  change 

of  location IX  339 

Drummond  from  Marston  Spur,  refund  on  shipments  of 

logs VII  12 

Dudley  Spur  to  Kenosha,  refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark..IV  175 


750  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Dunfield  to  Kenosha,  refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark IV  175 

Dunham  to  Neillsville,  refund  on  shipment  of  potatoes VI  667 

Duplainville  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on 

lime XI  419 

,  station  facilities VI,  23;  XII,  111 

,  train  service XII  690 

Durand,  electric  rates VI  334 

from  Waukesha,  rates  on  shipment  of  ground  lime- 
stone, reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  718 

,  water  meters  and  services XI  169 

Dwight,  sidetrack  facilities IV  117 

,  switch  connections,  spur  track..... VI  501 

strain  service  and  switch  connections I  191 

E 

Eagle    (farm    crossing,    3    miles   west),    railroad    crossing, 

protection  of XV  272 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of .....XV  397 

Eagle  Point,  telephone  utilities,  changing  of  toll  station  to  a 

rural  station XV  454 

Eagle  River,  electric  rates VI  521 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  47 

,  telephone  rates XIV  499 

— ■ — ,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV       •    457 

East   Appleton    (Newberry   St.),    (Walter    Ave.),   railroad 

crossings,  separation  of  grades IX  322 

Eastman,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  42 

■ ,  telephone  utility,  checking  station,  establishment  of. XIV  568 

and  Bridgeport  (between),  telephone  rates XII  140 

and  Prairie  du  Chien  (between),  telephone  rates XII  140 

East  Milwaukee,  street  railway  rates,  fare  limits X  358 

East  Troy,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness- of XV  397 

Eau  Claire,  streiet  railway,  relocation  of  track  and  adequacy 

of  service XIV  713 

,  electric  rates,  revision  of II  311 

,  electric  rates,  flaming  arc  lamps IX  500 

,  electric  rates X,  692;  XIII,  19,  444 

(Chestnut  St.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIII,  74,  628 

(Dewey  St.),  railroad  crossings,  separation  of  grades. ..XV  >24 

(Intersection  of  Drummond  road  with  line  of  C.  M.  & 

St.  P.  R.  Co.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIV  104 

(Intersection  of  Drummond  road  with  line  of  C.  St. 

P.  M.  &  O.  R.  Co.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIV  104 

(Putman  St.),  railroad  crossings,  separation  of  grades.XV  24 

to  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  and  M.  St. 

P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.,  rates  on  concrete  blocks IX  82 

and  Ashland,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of I  767 

to  Ashland,  refund  on  shipment  of  corn IV  331 


Localities  Index  751 


Vol.  and  Page. 
Eau  Claire  from  Ashland,  rates  on  pulp  wood,  reasonableness 

of II  129 

from  Beldenville,  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund II  131 

from  Cobban,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and 


refund II  342 

—  from   Crandon,  refund  on  shipment  of  empty  fruit 

packages V  642 

—  from  Hatch's  Spur  and  Cobban,  refund  on  shipments 


of  logs IV  319 

from  Signor,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood VIII  38 

from  Spring  Valley,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber Ill  66 

from  Stinson  Spur,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  196 

Villa  from  Wausau,   street  railway  fare  zones   and 

rates  of  fare Ill  520 

,  water  rates IX  134 

Eau  Galle,  electric  rates VI  334 

Eden,  spur  track,  construction  of ^ IV  233 

,  switch  connections IV  788 

• ,  town  of.  Fond  du  Lac  Co.,  spur  track,  construction 

of V,  110,  727;  VII,  140 

,  telephone  rates XI  114 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  248 

Edgerton,    from    Wis.    points,    refund,    on    shipments    of 

cordwood IV  480 

' to  Deerfield,  joint  rates  on  lumber V  714 

from  Elcho,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  195 

from  Racine  Jet.,  rates  on  vehicle  springs VIII  36 

Edgewater  to  Birchwood,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  482 

Egg  Harbor,  telephone  utility,  certificate  of  public  conveni- 
ence and  necessity.. XIV  524 

Eidsvold,  train  service,  adequacy  of XIV  462 

Elcho,  town  of  (134  miles  north  of  Summit  Lake)  railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XIV  796 

to  Edgerton,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  195 

Elderon,  telephone  service XIII  23 

Eleva,  telephone  rates VI  211;  XIV  586 

Elk  Mound,  electric  rates IX  305 

,  electric  rates,  flaming  arc  lamps IX  500 

- — — ,  (First  Ave.)  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  654 

Elkhart,  Chilton,  New  Holstein  and  Kiel  from  Manitowoc, 

joint  rates,  establishment  of I  19 

to  Sheboygan,  joint  rates  on  barley  established  between 

the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  and  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  Co V  668 

Elkhart  Lake,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

and  Green  Bay  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of. XIII  80 

,  water  rates- XI  690 

Elkhorn,  telephone  rates VIII  497 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XIII  597 


752  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Ellenboro,  town  of.  Grant  Co.  telephone  rates  and  discrim- 
ination  VII  608;  X534 

,  telephone  utilities,  interference  of  high  voltage  trans- 
mission lines XV  622 

Ellis  Jet.  to  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VI  586 

to  Park  Falls,  reduction  of  joint  rates  and  refund  on 

shipment  of  pulp XI  699 

Ellsworth  from  La  Crosse,  refund  on  shipment  of  beer IV  1 90 

Elmhurst  to  Clintonville,  refund  on  shipment  of  poles  and 

posts IX  185 

Elroy  from  Sparta,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal IX  396 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIII  646 

,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  399 

,  water  and  electric  rates XIV  485 

Elton,  from  Lenawa  and  Spurs  9  and  12  on  the  Washburn 

branch  of  the  N.  P.  R.,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  206 

Embarrass  to  Neenah  and  Menasha,  reasonableness  of  rates 

on  wood  bolts IV  248 

Emerald  from  Superior,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal VIII  683 

,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XV  241 

Endeavor,  electric  rates XIII  448 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  724 

Engle,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XI  175 

Escanaba,  Mich,  to  Long  Lake,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal. XII  709 

Ettrick,  telephone  rates II  358;  XIV  405 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XII  68 

Evansville,  electric  and  water  rates XI  197 

,  telephone  rates VI    606,    639 


Fairchild,  west  of,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XV  755 

to  Caryville,  railroad  construction,  certificate  of  public 

convenience  and  necessity,  granted ...VII  755 

Fairwater,  from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduc- 
tion of  joint  rates V  655 

from  Weyerhauser,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction 

of  joint  rates V  655 

Fall  Creek,  railroad  crossing,  protection  and  restoration  of I  310 

Fall  River,  railroad  grade  crossing,  protection  of IV  778 

,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  92 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  499 

,  telephone  utilities,  adequacy  of  service XIV  793 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of II  621 

Farmington  to  Waupaca,  (Wis.  Veterans'  Home),  carrying  of  d 

freight  by  electric  railway XV  656 

Fence  to  Girard  Jet.,  rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of . ...  1 1  801 


Localities  Index  753 


Vol.  and  Page 
Fennimore,  telephone  utilities,  adequacy  of  service,  interfer- 
ence of  high  voltage  transmission  lines XV  622 

,  water  rates XII  194 

Fenwood  to  Frances  Creek,  refund^on  shipment  of  wood XI  269 

Fernan,  reasonableness  of  rates  for  telephone  switching  serv- 
ice and  use  of  trunk  line XV  315 

Fernhaber  crossing  {}4  niile  east  of  Schleisingerville),  rail- 
road'crossing,  separation  of  grades XI  86 

Field,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of II  253 

Fifield  to  Kimberly,  cancellation  of  joint  trainload  rates  on 

pulp  wood VIII  105 

Finley,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIII  617 

Fitchburg  (Fergin  crossing),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of.XIII  403 

Fond  du  Lac,  crossing  of  electric  road  over  steam  road IV      127,  132 

,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

and  Oshkosh,  interurban  railway  rates  and  fare  zones.... VI  473 

(about  4  miles  southeast),  (Edgerton  crossing)  railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XII  123 

from  Wis.  points,  minimum  carload  weights  and  refund 

on  shipment IX  228 

from  Wis.  points  on  La  Farge  branch  of  G.  M.  &  St.  P. 

R.  reduction  of  rates  on  lumber VIII  131 

from  nearby  points  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment 

of  livestock VIII  532 

from  Delavan,  ice  boat,  refund  on  shipment Ill  504 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates... V  531 

and  Oshkosh  to  Milwaukee,  rates  on  coal,  reasonable- 
ness of,  and  refund XIV  746 

from  Milwaukee,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer XIII  42 

to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  cheese VI  579 

to  Oshkosh,  refund  on  shipments  of  fruit V  675 

from  Wausaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  706 

,  telephone  directories,  advertisements  in IV  340 

from  Oakfield,  telephone  rates XIII  726 

,  sleeping  car  service,  adequacy  of XV  606 

and  Janesville,  train  service  between XII  74 

and  Watertown,  train  service  between XII  74 

,  water  works,  municipal  acquisition  of V  482;   VIII    259 

Fontana  electric  rates V  171 

,  electric  service,  adequacy  of XV  383 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  412 

Forestville,  Door  county,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of I  223 

Ft.  Atkinson,  electric  and  water  rates .XII   260,  729 

— (Madison  Ave.  West  crossing),  (Sherman  Ave.  West 

crossing),  (South  Fifth  St.),  railroad  crossings,  protec- 
tion of : XIII  69 

(South  Fifth  St.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XV  250 

from  Cazenovia,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  219 


754  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Ft.  Atkinson  from  Oshkosh,  motor  boat,  refund  on  shipment  IV  498 

from  Rice  Lake,  rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of, 

and  refund ilV  225 

— — ,  train  service XII  74 


Fosterville  from  Stratford,  refund  on  shipment  of  hay XIII  468 

Fountain  Spur  to  Donald,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  63 

Foxboro,  train  service.... IV  121 

Fox  Lake,  telephone  rates  and  ser\dce VIII   92;  XI  499 

Fox  River,  telephone  facilities  in  railroad  station IV  388 

Fox  River  Valley  points,  from  Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis., 

group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

Frances  Creek  from  Fenwood,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood.XI  269 
Franksville  from  Waukesha,   reasonableness   of  rates,   on 

lime XI  419 

Frederic  to  Birchwood,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  643 

Fredonia,    town    of,    Ozaukee    county,    railroad    crossing, 

protection  of XII  516 

from  Kiel,  refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes... IX  278 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Freeport-Madison  branch  of  the  I.  C.  R.  R.,  train  service, 

adequacy  of II  279 

Freistadt,  telephone  rates....... VII  428 

Fremont,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection  of XIV  102 

Friendship,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  399 

,  telephone  utihties,  relocation  of  exchange XV  530 

G 

Gagen  and  Atkins  (Siding  234  between)  to  Crandon,  refund 

on  shipment  of  logs IX  57 

Gale,  town  of  (Richard  Jahn  crossing),  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of XIV  445 

Galesville  from  La  Crosse,  refund  on  shipment  of  flour VI  207 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XII  68 

to  La  Crosse,  telephone  utility,  toll  rates.. XIII  25 

and  La  Crosse  (between),  telephone  utility,  toll  rates. XIV  180 

Galloway  to  Clintonville,  concentration  rates  on  poles  and 

posts ; X  461 

Genesee,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  397 

Geneva,  points  about  Lake  Geneva,  electric  rates V  '         -    171 

,  town  of  (intersection  with  road  leading  from  Lake 

Geneva  to  Williams  Bay),  railroad  crossing,  protection 

of XIV  481 

Genoa  Jet.,  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  337 

Germantown  from'  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on 

lime.... XI  419 

from  Weyerhauser,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction 

of  joint  rates V  655 

Gillett,  town  of,  Oconto  Co.,  railroad  crossing,  installation  of. IX  535 


Localities  Index  755 


Vol.  and  Page 
Gillett  and  Green  Valley  (point  between),  station  facilities, 

installation  of X  •     495 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection IX  189 

and  Green  Valley  (point  between  on  county  road),  train 

service,  adequacy  of XI  604 

Gilman  and  Bellinger  (siding  between)  to  Stanley,  refund  on 

shipment  of  posts IX  64 

from  Cobban,  refund  on  shipments  of  bolts XII  134 

Gilmanton,  electric  rates XIV  152 

Girard  Jet.  from  Fence,  rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness 

of II  801 

Glasgow,  Trempealeau  county,  telephone  utility,  extension 

of  line XII  744 

Glenbeulah  to  Ripon,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  484 

Glidden,  telephone  rates XV  180 

Glover,  from  Butternut,  rates  on  shipments  of  cheese  boxes, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  761 

Goodman  to  Pembine,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  41 

to  Tomahawk,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  581 

Goodnow  to  Merrill,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  54 

Goodrich  to  Athens,  operation  of  branch  railroad I  739;  IV  455 

Grafton  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

,  telephone  rates VII  428 

Grand  Rapids,  electric  utility  municipal  acquisition XV  258 

(Fourth    Ave.    North    crossing),    railroad    crossing, 

protection  of XIII  395 

(Third    Ave.    North    crossing),    railroad    crossing, 

protection  of XIII  395 

from  Wis.  points,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on 

shipments  of  pulp  wood IX  111 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R., 


reduction  of  rates  on  wood XI  393 

from  Gravel  Pits,  reasonableness  of  rates,   on  sand 

and  gravel XV  482 

from  Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis.  group  rates  on  coal. VI  436 

to  Port  Edwards,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  "hog  ' 

fuel,"  and  refund .'...... XV  527 

from   Rhinelander,    restoration   of  joint   commodity 

rate VIII  58 

from  Star  Lake,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund II  773 

—  from  Vesper,  refund  on  shipment  of  brick IX  163 

Grandview  to  Cumberland,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of, 

and  refund XIV  287;  XV  158 

to  Washburn,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood  bolts Ill  600 

Granite  from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  bags IX  182 

Grant  county,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection,  and 

establishment  of  uniform  service,  rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

,  telephone  rates XIV  407 


756  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Granton  from  Chili,  refund  on  shipments  of  bolts Ill  518 

Grantst)urg,  extension  of  telephone  service  without  author- 
ity from  Commission XIII  437 

,  sAvitch  connections IV  395 

,  train  service  and  station  facilities VII  764 

,  train  service VIII  685 

Granville,  railroad  crossings,  protection  of I  712 

,  town  of  (Cedarburg  Plank  Road),  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of XI  612 

from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime ,...XIII  38 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  hme XI  419 


Gravel  Pit  to  Horicon,  refund  on  shipment  of  fuel  wood VI  199 

to  Grand  Rapids,  Waupaca  and  Scandinavia,  reason- 
ableness of  rates  on  sand  and  gravel XV  482 

Green  Bay,  street  railway,  extension  of  line VII  715 

,  street  railway,  track  curves  and  elimination  of  noise VIII  688 

and  Manitowoc  (between),  express  rates  on  laundry XIV  817 

,  gas  rates V  101 

,  gas  and  electric  rates XII  324 

,    (Main   street),    (Mason   street),    (Monroe    avenue), 

(Walnut  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  383 

from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  388 

to  Appleton,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

to  Appleton,  refund  on  shipment  of  coke IV  171 

from  Cedarville,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  386 

from  Davis  Spur,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  385 

to  Hobson,  refund  on  shipment  of  groceries Ill  422 

to  Fox  River  Valley  points,  group  rates  on  coal...., VI  436 

from  La  Crosse,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

from  Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis.,  group  rates  on  coal...  VI  436 

from  Long  Lake,  refund  on  shipment  of  piling X  639 

to  Long  Lake,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal XII  709 

from  Manawa,  rates  on  cucumbers  and  onions,  reason- 
ableness of  and  refund II  -  340 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates.. : V  531 

from  Racine  and  Racine  Jet.,  refund  on  shipment  of 

springs  and  axles IX  180 

to  Wis.  River  Valley  points,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

to  Wausau,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

,  switching  charges,  absorption  of XIV  172 

,  ordinance  requiring  removal  of  telephone  poles Ill  147 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of XV  758 

and  Elkhart  Lake  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of.XIII  80 

-.  water  rates  and  service XI  236;  XII  734;  XV  84 


Greenfield,  town  of,  Milwaukee  Co.,  (Janesville Plank  Road) 

(Forest  Home  avenue),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of... XI  362 

,  town  of,  Milwaukee  Co.  (Kilbourn  road)  (Twenty- 
second  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  362 


Localities  Index  757 


Vol.  and  Page 
Greenfield,  town  of,   Milwaukee   Co.,   (South  Town  Line 

road),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades IX  270 

,   town    of,   Milwaukee   Go.    (Twenty-fourth  avenue) 

(Twenty-sixth  avenue),  railroad  crossing XI  362 

Green  Grove,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIII  630 

Green  Lake  from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber 

and  reduction  of  joint  rates V  647 

Green  Valley  and  Gillette,  (point  between)  station  facilities, 

installation  of X  495 

— ■ —  and  Gillette,  (point  between  on  county  road),  train 

service,  adequacy  of XI  604 

Greenville,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  386 

Greenwood,  electric  rates,  minimum  charges VI  *  60 

— ,  telephone  utilities,  adequacy  of  service XV  323 

from  Marshfield,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  720 

Gresham,  telephone  utilities,  increase  in  rates XV  552 

Grimms  to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipment  of  lime IX  160 


H 

Hackley  from  Oakfield,  refund  on  shipments  of  lime VII  149 

Hamilton  (300  ft.  north  of),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of. XI  95 
Hamilton  and  Honey  Creek  to  Menomonee  Falls,  reasonable- 
ness of  rates  on  sugar  beets,  and  refund XV  650 

Hanley  to  Bagley  Jet.,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  ship- 
ment of  piling XI  108 

Hannibal  to  Boyd,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  40 

Hartford,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  certificate  of  public 

convenience  and  necessity XIV  766 

Hartland  (Cottonwood  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of  XI  432 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Hatch's  Spur  to  Eau  Claire,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  319 

Hatley  to  South  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  cord- 
wood • VI  222 

Hawkins  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood VIII  62 

,  switching  rates  on  lumber,  reasonableness  of,   and 

refund XIV  136 

Hayton,  Kiel,  New  Holstein  and  Chilton  from  Manitowoc, 

joint  rates  on  barley,  reasonableness  of I  69 

Hayward  from  Ashland,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VII  14 

from  Hines,  rates  on  train  load  shipments  of  logs, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund II  390 

Hazelhurst  to  Appleton  and  Kaukauna,  refund  on  shipments 

of  lumber VI  209 

to  Merrill,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  54 

Hazel  Green,  train  service,  adequacy  of II  61 

HeafFord  Jet.  to  La  Crosse,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  Christ- 
mas trees  and  refund XII  95 


758  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Heafford  Jet.  from  Mansori  and  Bradley,  rates  on  shipment 

of  bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund \..XIV  805 

to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  362 

Heineman  branch  (point  on)  of  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  to  Sheboygan, 

refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  141 

Heineman  to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  281 

Helenville  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime... XI  419 

Herman,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  402 

Ilewetts  from  Highland  Jet.  rates  on  stone  tailings,  reason- 
ableness of,  and  refund XIV  217 

Highland  to  Wis.  Points,  on  the  C.  &  N..  W.  R.  and  return, 

refund  on  shipment  of  beer  and  empty  beer  carriers XII  236 

r-  to  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  establishment  of 

joint  rates  on  beer IX  76 

and  Mineral  Point,  (between)  train  service,  adequacy 

of '...XI  643 

Jet.  to  Hewetts,  rates  on  stone  tailings,  reasonableness 


of,  and  refund XIV  217 

Hilbert  Jet.  to  Sheboygan,  joint  rates  on  barley  established 
between  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co ' V  668 

Hillsboro  from  Madison,  rates  on  shipments  of  wire  fencing, 

barb  wire,  staples  and  nails,  reasonableness  of,  and  refund  XII  756 

,  water  rates  and  service VIII  85 

Hillsdale  to  Osceola,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain ...V  291 

,  station  facilities .'. V  198 

Hines  to  Hayward,  rates  on  trainload  shipments  of  logs, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund II  390 

Hinkle  (between  Kimball  and  Hurley),  train  service,  ade- 
quacy of XV  502 

Hintz,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection IX  189 

Hixon  to  Cedar  Falls,  operation  of  railroad  line,  continua- 
tion of XII  223 

Hixton  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  oats *. V  430 

Hoard,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIII  630 

Hobson  from  Green  Bay,  refund  on  shipment  of  groceries. ...HI  422 

Holcombe,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  814 

Holder  and  Stratford  (between),  rates  on  logs,  reasonable- 
ness of,  adequacy  of  train  service  and  station  facilities... I  831 
Honey   Greek    {l}4   miles   north   of),    (Cooper's  crossing), 

railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  436 

and  Hamilton  to  Menomonee  Falls,  reasonableness  of 

rates  on  sugar  beets,  and  refund XV  650 

Horicon  from  Gravel  Pit,  refund  on  shipment  of  fuel  wood. .VI  199 

from  Milwaukee,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  sand,  and 

refund XV  164 

■ from ,  refund  on  shipments  of  slag XIII  640 

from  Neopit,  petition  for  joint  rates,  and  refund  on 

shipments VIII  247 


Localities  Index  759 


Vol.  and  Page 

Horicon  from  Waiisau,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  434 

,  dredging  of  river XIII  603 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIV  144 

Hortonville,  telephone  rates  and  service IV  370 

Ilotchkiss    Spur   from   Lange    Spur    (2.1    miles   between) 

(between  Draper  and  Kaiser),  rates  on  ties  and  rails, 

reasonableness  of,  and  refund XIV  186 

Howard,   town   of   (1    mile  west   of  Albertville),    railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XIV  433 

Hub  City,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XIV  655 

Hubertus,  telephone  utilities,  adequacy  of  service XV  152 

Hudson,  electric  rates  and  service V  139 

from  Wis.  points,   and  destined  to  Manitowoc  and 

Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  488 

,  rules  and  regulations  governing  meters Ill  138 

Humbird  (King  St.  crossing),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of  X  434 

Hurley  to  Mayville,  refund  on  shipments  of  iron  ore XII  716 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  766 

,  water  rates  and  service XIV  291 

Hustler,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  399' 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XII  213 

Hyde,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection ...XV  390 


Independence  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  oats 

and  rye V  430 

Ingram  to  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipment  of  slabs IX  39 

Iowa  county,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection  and 

establishment  of  uniform  service,  rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

Iron  Ridge  (Dodge  Co.),  railroad  grade  crossing,  separation 

of  grades VI        128,672 

Iron  River  or  Bibon  from  Lake  Nebagamon  (between)  and 
other  points  from  Winnebijou  and  Campbell's  Mill, 
train  service,  adequacy  of XV  599 

Ironton  to  and  from  Wis.  points,  joint  rates VI  693 

Itasca  to  Combined  Locks,  Kimberly  and  Appleton,  rates  on 

pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  250 

from  Clear  Lake,  double  minimum  on  mixed  carloads 

of  grains  and  seeds • V  711 

Station   (Superior)   from  East  End  yard,  refund  on 

shipment  of  crushed  stone..... VI  219 

Station   (Superior)  from  East  End  yard,  refund  on 

shipment  of  crushed  stone  and  establishment  of  switch- 
ing charge  in  place  of  distance  tariff  rate V  449 

discriminatory  leasing  of  grain  elevator I  655 


Ixonia  and  Watertown,  towns  of,  Jefferson  county  (town 

road  between),  interurban  railway  service XII  404 


760  Localities  Index 


J 

Vol.  and  Page 

Jackson  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI     -  419 

Jacksonport,   telephone   utility,   certificate  of  public   con- 
venience and  necessity XIV  524 

Janesville,  street  railyray,  abandonment  of  track IV  757 

,  interurban  railways,  routing  of  cars IX  502 

(South  Janesville),  interurban  railway  rates VI  695 

^ ,  electric  service .XII  57.0 

(Rock  river  in),    navigable   waters,   obstructions  in 

stream XIV  190 

,  reasonableness  of  switching  charges  on  gravel  and 

sand X  436 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.,  refund  on 

shipment  of  grain X  377 

to  Wis.  points  on  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.,  refund  on  ship- 
ments of  sand  and  gravel XIII  380 

to  Gudahy,  rates  on  shipment  of  grain,  reasonableness 

of,  and  refund XIV  79 

— ^ —  from  La  Grosse,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  531 

— — ,   Menomonee  Falls  and   Ghippewa  Falls  from  Wis. 
points-,  rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness 

of I  258 

ta  Milwaukee,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  rye,  and 

refund XV  524 

from  Nekoosa,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  rye,  and 

refund ' XV  524 

from  Racine  Jet.,  rates  on  vehicle  springs VIII  36 

from  Rice  Lake,  refund  on  shipment  of  excelsior Ill  595 

,  Sparta,  Madison  &  Watertown,  from  Wis.  points  on 

the  G.  B.  &  W.  R.,  joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness 

of....: ; II  807 

from  Trempealeau,  refund  on  shipment  of  buckwheat. XIV  771 

— — ,  switching  service I  590,  733;  II  553 

— — ,  absorption  of  switching  charges XIII  783 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  378 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XIV  529 

and  Fond  du  Lac,  train  service  between XII  74 

and  Mineral  Point  (between),  train  service XI  569 

,  extension  of  water  main XV  370 

,  water  rates  and  service VII  628;  XV  117 

,  water  utility,  municipal  acquisition XIII  29;  XV  674 

Jarvis  to  Bagley  Jet.,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  ship- 
ment of  piling XI  108 

Jefferson,  electric  and  water  rates V  555 

from  Merrimac,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  waste.VIII  553 

,  train  service XII  74 


Localities  Index  761 


Vol.  and  Page 
JclTerson  Jet.  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on 

lime XI  419 

Jet.  train  service XII  74 

Joel,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  465 

Jonesdale,  train  service,  adequacy  of .....X  512 

Juda,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of  telephone  service XV  433 

Junction  city,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs,  and  refund... XV  53 

K 

Kaiser  to  Stoughton,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  267 

Kansasville  (crossing  near),  railroad  grade  crossing,  protec- 
tion of ...VIII  513 

Kaukauna,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

,  electric  utility,  municipal  acquisition XII  189 

,  electric  service  and  facilities V  695 

,  electric  and  gas  utility,  municipal  acquisition VIII  409 

,  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades.. IX  322 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  refund  on 

shipment  of  logs  and  wood XI  144 

from  Hazclhurst,  refund  on  shipments'of  lumber VI  209 

from  Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis.,  group  rates  on  coal..  .VI  436 

and  Manitowoc  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of....X  590 

Keesus  from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  hme XIII  38 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Kendall  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  oats XIII  182 

Kennan  to  Phillips,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  ship- 
ments of  wood XIII  687 

Kenosha,  interurban  railway,  adequacy  of  service XII  508 

,  (Prairie  ave.)  railroad  crossing,- protection  of XI  56'0 

,  electric  rates VIII  119 

,  from  Dunfield  and  Dudley  Spur,  refund  on  shipments 

of  tanbark IV  175 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  -     5'U 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  structural  iron.  .VI  540 

,  Racine  and  Milwaukee,  from  Rhinelander  and  Odanah, 

reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber,  and  refund XV  575 

from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

from  Scotts,  refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

,  re-opening  of  switch  track  as  a  team  track V  295 

,  station  facilities,  interurban  railways XII  257 

,  water  rates XV  426 

Kewaunee  from  Birchwood,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber. IV  109 

from  Mellen,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  772 

Kiel,  from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  597 

,  Elkhart,  Chilton  and  New  Holstein  from  Manitowoc, 

joint  rates,  establishment  of I  19 

to  Fredonia,  refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes IX  278 


762  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Kiel,  New  Holstein,  Chilton  and  Hay  ton  from  Manitowoc, 

joint  rates  on  barley,  reasonableness  of I  '   69 

— —  to  Sheboygan,  joint  rates  on  barley  established  between 

the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Go.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R.  G0....V  668 

Kilbourn  and  Portage  (between),  station  facilities,  adequacy 

of I       .  254 

,  train  service XII  560 


Kimberly  from  Wis.  points  on  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R.  refund  oh 

shipment  of  logs  and  wood XI  144 

from  Wis.  points   (Northern  Wis.),  refund  on  ship- 

'  ments  of  pulp  wood VI  175 

Appleton  and  Combined  Locks,  from  Itasca,  rates  on 

pulp  wood,  reasonableness  of  and  refund II  250 

from  Butternut,  Fifield,  and  Park  Falls,  tancellation  of 


joint  trainload  rates  on  pulp  wood VIII  105 

Kingston,  spur  track XIII  615 

,  telephone  utilities,  toll  rates  and  division  of  tolls XV  288 

Knapp,  (2.6  miles  southeast  of),  (Kasper  crossing)  railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XI  592 

,   (2.4  miles  southeast  of)   (McGuUoch  crossing),  rail- 
road crossing,  protection  of XI  595 

to  New  Richmond,  rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of  and 


refund II  610 

Knowles  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  flux  stone IV  114 

Knowlton,  reasonableness  of  rateson  logs,  and  refund XV  53. 

Krakow,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of II  275 

Kurth,  train  service,  adequacy  of IX  513 

i 

L 

La  Grosse,  interpretation  of  accounting  terms  in  contract VIII  18 

,  street  railway,  abandonment  of  track Ill  292 

,  street  railway,  adequacy  of  service XV  174 

,  25th  and  La  Grosse  streets,  street  railway  service XIV  518 

,  electric  service,  adequacy  of ...-. II  670 

,  electric  rates,  increase  in II  3 

— — ,  electric  rates,  payment  of  rates  in  advance IV  142 

,  electric,  gas,  and  heating  rates VIII  138 

— -^j  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades VIII  422 

— (Mill  street  crossing),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIII  145 

to  Wis.  points,  less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum 

products VI  326 

to  Wis.  points  (southern  and  eastern),  rates  on  .dried 

brewers'  grains .- V  705 

to  Berlin,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

to  Ellsworth  and  River  Falls,  refund  on  shipment  of 

beer : IV  190 

to  Galesville,  refund  on  shipment  of  flour VI  207 

to  Green  Bay,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 


Localities  Index  '  763 


Vol.  and  Page 
I.a  Crosse  from  HealTord  Jet.  reasonableness  of  rates  on 

Christmas  trees  and  refund  on  shipment XII  95 

to  Janesville,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

to  Markesan,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

from  Menomonie,  refund  on  shipment  of  brick IV  775 

and  Milwaukee,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  bottles,  and 

refund XV  82 

to  Minnesota  Jet.  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

from  New  London,  rates  on  slab  wood,  reasonableness 


of,  and  refund '. XIV  138 

— ,  to  Rice  Lake,  refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  18 

— ,  So.  La  Crosse  to  No.  La  Crosse,  switching  rates  on 

scrap  iron  and  refund  on  shipment XII  186 

—  to  Thiensville,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

—  to  Troy  Center,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

—  from  Vesper,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  silos,  and  re- 
fund  XV  442 

—  to  Watertown,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

—  to  Winneconne,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

-,  telephone  rates II  546;  XV  831 

— ,  telephone  poles  removal  of VII  435 

— ,  telephone  and  electric  poles,  removal  of VI  195 

— ,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XI  748;  XII  68;  XV  36 

—  and  Galesville  (between),  telephone  utility,  toll  rates... 

XIII  25;  XIV  180 

— ,  water  service VII  27 


Ladysmith,    (Lake   ave.)    (Miner   ave.)    (Second   st.    f^ast) 

(Second  st.  west),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI    325,   554 

,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  276 

to  Wis.  points  (southern  Wis.)  refund  on  shipments  of 

lumber  and  reduction  of  joint  rates V        647,  655 

to  Ashland,  refand  on  shipment  of  paper VIII  78 

^ — —  to  Beloit,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and  reduction 

of  joint  rates V        647,  655 

from  Ellis  Jet.,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VI  586 

to  Fairwater,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction  of 

joint  rates - V  655 

to  Green  Lake,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and  re- 
duction of  joint  rates V  647 

from  Ingram,  refund  on  shipment  of  slabs IX  39 

to  Markesan,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction  of 

joint  rates V  655^ 

from  McCann's  Spur,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of 

and  refund II  589 

to  Menasha,  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood VIII  16 

from  Menasha,  refund  oH  shipment  of  paper II  300 

from  Merrill,  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood Ill  620 

to  North  Prairie,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction 

of  joint  rates V  655 


764    .  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Ladysmith  to  Princeton,  refund  on  shipments  of  lurnber  and 

reduction  of  joint  rates V  647 

from  Rhinelander,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood  pulp.. IV  360 

from  Stiles,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VI  586 

to  Tomah,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction  of  joint 

rates..^ V  655 

to  Wonewoc,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and  reduc- 
tion of  joint  rates .V  647 

La  Farge  to  Mt.  Horeb,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  528 

to  Watertown,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  131 

LaFayette,  town  of,  Chippewa  Co.,  telephone  rates XI  415 

county,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection,  and 

establishment  of  uniform  service  rates,  rules,  etc XV  92 

La  Grange,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  397 

Lake  from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal,  feed  and 

refuse X  370 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Lake  Beulah   (3  miles  south  of),   (Heinebaugh  crossing), 

railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  436 

Lake  Geneva,  electric  rates XII  337;  XIV  381 

,  and  immediate  vicinity,  electric  rates,  meter  rental... VI  203 

,  points  about  Lake  Geneva,  electric  rates V  171 

,  municipal  acquisition  of  water  works VI  403 

Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis.  to  Wis.  points  in  the  Fox 
River  Valley  and  the  Wis.  River  Valley  districts,  group 

rates  on  coal VI  436 

Lake  Mills  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime.... XI  419 

,  telephone  rates VI  187 

,  water  mains,  extension  of XII  577;  XIV  210 

water  and  electric  utilities,  financial  management XI  160 

Lake  Nebagamon  to  Iron  River  or  Bibon  (between),  and 
other   points   from   Winnebijou   and    Campbell's   Mill, 

train  service,  adequacy  of ; XV  599 

,  telephone  service,  adequacy  of XV  50 

Lake  Park  in  Milwaukee,  street  railway  service,  adequacy  of  .IV  439 

Lampson,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of IV  783;  XV  489 

Lancaster,  electric  rates,  minimum  charges VI  53 

from  Richland  Center,  refund  on  shipment  of  cheese 

boxes ; IX  517 

,  telephone  utilities,  interference  of  high  voltage  trans- 
mission lines XV  622 

— —  and  Madison,  train  service  between... VIII  320 

Lange    Spur    to    Hotchkiss    Spur    (2.1    miles    between), 
(between  Draper  and  Kaiser),  rates  on  ties  and  rails, 

reasonableness  of,  and  refund XIV  186 

Lannon,  demurrage  charges  on  shipments  of  stone XIV  449 

(two   culverts  immediately  west   of  the   "Wye"   at 

Lannon),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of , XV  203 

Laona  to  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber VII  774;  VIII  697 


Localities  Index  765 


Vol.  and  Page 

Laona,  train  service,  adequacy  of XV  758 

Laona  Jet.  (east  of),  train  service IX  45 

La  Prairie,  town  of  (South  Janesville  crossing)   (Woodman's 

crossing),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIII  440 

Larsen,  telephone  rates  and  service XIII  363 

Lauderdale  Lake,  telephone  utiUties,  physical  connection XIII  597 

Lavalle  to  and  from  Wis.  points,  joint  rates VI  693 

Lay  ton  Park  from  Waukesha,  refund  on  shipment  of  gravel 

and  crushed  stone , XIII  368 

Lebanon,  town  of.  Dodge  Co.,  railroad  crossing VI  424 

Lehigh,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  585 

Lenawa  and  Spurs  9  and  12  on  the  Washburn  branch  of  the 

N.  P.  R.  to  Elton,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  206 

Lewiston,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of. I  254 

,  station  facilities  and  train  service,  adequacy  of I  102 

Lime  Kilns,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of II  344 

Lincoln,  town  of,  Monroe  Co.,  railroad  crossing,  restoration 

of X  531 

Lisbon,  town  of,  Waukesha  Co.,  railroad  crossing V  592 

,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  131;  XV  57 

Little   Rapids  to   Stevens  Point,   refund   on  shipment  of 

wood  pulp VIII  64 

Livingston,  telephone  rates XII  128 

from  Montfort  Jet.,  train  service,  adequacy  of X  500 

Lodi,  electric  rates  and  meters VII  745 

,  telephone  rates  and  service XI  713;  XIV  157 

Loganville,  telephone  rates  and  service XIV  157 

Lohrville,  station  facilities VIII  699 

Lomira,  telephone  service,  adequacy  of.. XV  582 

London  (1  ^  miles  west)    (Himley  crossing)    (Main  street) 
(2  miles  west)  (Schroeder  crossing),    railroad  crossings 

protection  of XII  676 

London  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Lone  Rock  from  Menomonie,  refund  on  shipment  of  brick  XII  217 

,  telephone  rates Ill  412 

Long  Lake,  Washburn  county,  level  and  flow  of  water XV  708 

from  Escanaba,  Mich.,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal XII  709 

to  Green  Bay,  refund  on  shipment  of  piling X  639 

from  Green  Bay,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal XII  709 

Loyal,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  720 

LubUn  to  Chippewa  Falls,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of, 

and  refund II  607 

Lucas,  town  of  (Kaspar  crossing),  railroad  crossing,  protec- 
tion of XI  592;  XII  703 

Lusk,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of IX  342 

Luxemburg,  railroad  grade  crossing,  protection  of IV  244 

Lyons,  railroad  crossings,  protection  of X  499 


766  Localities  Index 


M 

Vol.  and  Page 

Madison,  articles  constituting  personal  baggage VIII  311 

,  authority  to  issue  bonds f, II  47 

,  street  railway  service.. .VI  162;  tX  1;  XI  67,  762;  XII 

49,  167;  XIV  598 

,  street  railway  rates  and  service XII  49 

,  ordinance  for  removal  of  poles  and  wires  of  electric 

utility ....XI  293 

,  gas  and  electric  service XIII  518 

,  gas  and  electric  rates VII  152;  XIII  259 

,  gas  and  electric  rates  and  service IV  501 

,  town  of,  (crossing  at  Sauk  road  near  Highlands  plat) 

railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades ...XII  395 

,  town  of  (Summit  crossing)  (Tierman  crossing)  (Tillot- 

son  crossing),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of XIII  608;  XV  108 

,  refund  on  shipments  of  scrap  iron V  426 

,  refund  on  shipment  of  steel  rails VIII  309 

from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  butter  and 

eggs Ill  337 

to  Belleville,  MonticeUo  and  Monroe,  car  service,  re- 
frigerator cars IX  240 

from  Colfax,  refund  on  shipments  of  stone  and  estab- 

ment  of  joint  rates V  287 

from  Colfax,  refund  on  shipments  of  stone V  635 

to  Hillsboro,  rates  on  shipments  of  wire  fencing,  barb 

wire,  staples  and  nails,  reasonableness  of,  and  refund XII  756 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  531 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  paper V  293 

from  Racine  Jet.  rates  on  vehicle  springs VIII  36 

from  Rhinelander,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood IV  478 

,  Sparta,  Janesville  and  Watertown  from  Wis.  points  on 

the  G.  B.  &  W.  R.,  joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness 

of II  807 

,  spur  track XIII  409 

,  switching  charge  on  scrap  iron ...IV  432 

,  classification  in  telephone  service Ill  440 

and  McFarland,  telephone  toll  rates  between Ill  452 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of ^ I  615 

Freeport  branch  of  the  I.  C.  R.  R.,  train  service,  ade- 
quacy of II  279 

and  Lancaster,  train  service  between VIII  320 

and  Portage,  train  service  between XII  560 

and  Prairie  du  Chien  (between),  Sunday  train  service, 

adequacy  of XV  652 

and  Verona,  Mt.  Horeb,  Dodgeville,  train  service  be- 
tween  VIII  320 

,  water  mains,  extension  of , X  447 


Localities  Index  767 


Vol.  and  Page 

Madison,  water  rates Ill  299 

,  water  rates  and  service V  731 

Madras  to  Stevens  Point,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs,  arid 

refund XV  53 

Magnolia,  station  facilities XII  564 

Maiden  Rock,  station  facilities Ill  356 

— — ,  train  service IV  311 

Malone  to  Milwaukee,  through  Fond  du  Lac,  refund  on 

shipment  of  live  stock VIII  532 

Manawa  to  Green  Bay,  rates  on  cucumbers  and  onions, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund II  340 

Manitowoc  and  Two  Rivers,  interurban  railway  rates VI  395 

,  electric  rates  and  service V  360 

,  electric  utility,  municipal  acquisition XIII  452 

,  electric  and  water  rates XIV  697;  XV  212 

and  Green  Bay  (between),  express  rates  on  laundry... XIV  817 

,  gas  rates Ill  163;  XIII  325 

from  Wis.  points,  with  stoppage  in  transit  at  Hudson, 

refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  488 

,  refund  from  charge  for  switching  cars  of  coal XII  184 

to  Appleton,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

to  Chilton,  Hay  ton,  Kiel,  New  Holstein,  joint  rates  on 

barley,  reasonableness  of I  69 

to  Chilton,  New  Holstein,  Kiel  and  Elkhart,  joint  rates, 

establishment  of I  19 

to  Cuba  City,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal Ill  517 

to  Fox  River  Valley  points,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  531 

to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  hay V  480 

to  Trevor,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal .- Ill  339 

to  Wausau,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

to  Wis.  River  Valley  points,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

and  Kaukauna,  (between)  train  service,  adequacy  of X  590 

,  water  rates  and  service X  387 

,  water  works,  municipal  acquisition VII  71;  VIII  266 

,  water  rates,  ownership  of  meters  and  service XIV  690 

Manson  and  Bradley  to  HeaiTord  Jet.,  rates  on  shipment  of 

bolts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  805 

Manson  and  Bradley  to  Merrill,  rates  on  shipment  of  bolts, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  805 

Maple  and  Wiehe   (between),   switch  connections,   estab- 

ment  of II  37 

Marathon  City,  railroad  grade  crossing,  protection  of VIII  28 

Marathon  county,  telephone  rates XV  822 

Marblehead,  spur  track.... VII  140 

Marengo  Jet.,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  316 

Marinette,  electric  rates Ill  778 

,  protection  of  railroad  grade  crossing V  455 

,  (Marinette  crossing),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of.... XV  200 


768  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Marinette  from  Oconto,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber ...IX  37 

from  Pulaski,  refund  on  shipment  of  oats V  432 

to  Stanley,  rates  on  carload  of  box  shooks,  reasonable- 
ness of,  and  refund .XIV  84 

,  telephone  rates IV  1 

-,  water  rates VIII  334 


Marion,  telephone  rates .....XIV  552 

to  Ashland,  refund  on  shipment  of  potatoes VI  667 

Markesan  from  La  Crosse,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains .V  705 

from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction  of 

joint  rate V       *  655 

telephone  toll  rates  and-  division  of  tolls XV  288 


Marshall  crossing  near  New  Lisbon,  railroad  grade  crossing, 

protection  of VIII  511 

Marshfield  (Adler  road),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  59 

,   town  of   (Auburndale  crossing),   railroad  crossings, 

protection  of XV  207 

(Becker  Road),   (East  Fourth  street),  railroad  cros- 
sing, protection  of XII  59 

,  town  of  (Main  St.  near  Hewitt  station),  railroad  cros- 
sing, protection  of XV  207 

,   town   of   (crossing   1%  miles   east   of   Marshfield), 

railroad  crossing,  protection  of ; XV  207 

(North  Central  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of....XII  59 

(Vine  St.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIV  110 

from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs VI  571 

to  Sheboygan,  rates  on  excelsior X  641 

,  Wausau,  and  intermediate  stations,  to  Bolton,  Bear 

Trap,  and  intermediate  stations,  reasonableness  of  rates 

on  hay,  and  refunds  on  shipments XII  433 

,    telephone    rates,    extra    charge    for    long    distance 

connections VI  589 

to  Greenwood,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  720 


Marston  Spur  to  Drummond,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs.. VII  12 
Martintown    and    Dodgeville    (between),    train    service, 

adequacy  of X  '   572 

Mattoon  to  Wis.  points,  joint  and  local  rates,  discrimination 

in  car  service,  and  railroad  as  carrier V  531 

,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  329 

Mansion,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  399 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XII  213 

Mayville,  dredging  of  river XIII  603 

,  electric  rates  and  rules  and  regulations VII  59 

,  Rock  River,  level  and  flow  of  water XV  698 

,  rates  on  shipments  of  brick,  reasonableness  of,  and 

refund... XIV  92 

,  refund  on  shipments  of  brick,  switching  rates XII  248 

from  Hurley,  refund  on  shipments  of  iron  ore XII  716 


Localities  Index  769 


Vol.  and  Page 
Mayville  to  West  A.llis,  rates  on  shipment  of  fuel  oil,  reason- 
ableness of,  and  refund XIV  577 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron VI    205,   548 

Mazomanie, .telephone  service IV  111 

,  telephone  rates  and  service XIV  157 

,  telephone  utihties,  physical  connection XV  390 

and  Black  Earth,  telephone  service Ill  514 

McCann's  Spur  to  Ladysmith,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness 

of,  and  refund II  589 

McCord,  Brantwood  and  Tripoli  to  Rhinelander,  reason- 
ableness of  rates  on  wood,  and  refund XV  171 

McFarland,  telephone  rates II  518;  III,  452 

and  Cottage  Grove,  telephone  toll  rates' between Ill  452 

and  Madison,  telephone  toll  rates  between Ill  452 

Mclnnis  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

McNaughton,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  326 

Medford,  electric  rates II  421 

— —  from  various   points,   rates   on   berry   boxes,    reason- 
ableness of I  44 

,  station  facilities VIII  301 

Meehan,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of X  626 

Mellen  to  Kewaunee,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  772 

to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XII  239 

— — ,  certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity  for 

water  utility '. VII  579 

,  water  service.....! V  202 

water  rates,  reasonableness  of X  651 


Menasha,  electric  rates XIII  424 

,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

to  Wis.  points,  reduction  of  rates  on  pulp  wood IX  111 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R., 

reduction  of  rates  on  wood XI  393 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R., 

refund  on  shipments  of  logs  and  bolts XI  746 

Neenah  from  Wis.  points  on  W.  C.  R.,  rates  on  pulp 

wood,  reasonableness  of I  234 

from  Abbottsford  and  Curtiss,  rates  on  wood  bolts, 

legality  of  ante-dated  tariff I  108 

from  Crandon,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  485 

from  Embarrass,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  wood  bolts.  IV  248 

from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood VIII  16 

to  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipment  of  paper II  300 

and  Oshkosh,  from  points  in  Wis.  on  the  M.  St.  P.  & 


S.  S.  M.  R.,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  bolts,  and  refund  .XV  178 

Mendota  (34  mile  north  of),  railroad  crossing,  alteration  of...  IX  218 
Menomonee,  town  of  (two  crossings  lying  partially  in  the 

town  of  Menomonee),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of... XIV  549 
Menomonee   Falls    (crossing   1    mile   west   of   Menomonee 

Falls),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XV  203 


25 


770  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Menomonee  Falls  (crossing  1.1  miles  west  of  Menomonee 

Falls),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XV  203 

,  from  Honey  Creek  and  Hamilton,  reasonableness  of 

rates  on  sugar  beets,  and  refund XV  650 

,   Janesville   and   Chippewa   Falls  from  Wis.   points, 

rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of I  258 

from  Waukesh.a,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Menomonie,  electric  rates,  flaming  arc  lamps IX  500 

to  La  Crosse,  refund  on  shipment  of  brick IV  775 

to  Lone  Rock,  refund  on  shipment  of  brick XII  217 

from  Waupun,  refund  on  shipment  of  twine XIII  393 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIV  123 

(North    Menomonie),    train    service    and    station 

facilities,  adequacy  of X  478 

Menomonie  Jet.,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIV  123 

Mentor,  town  of,  Clark  Co.   (King  st.  crossing),    railroad 

crossing,  protection  of X  .434 

Mequon  from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

— — ,  town  of,  Ozaukee  Co.,  telephone  rates VII  428 

Merrill,  street  railway,  extension  of  line V  418 

• ,  electric  rates,  increase  in II  148 

,  electric  utility,  standards  of  service VIII  270 

,  express  delivery  service XIII  594 

from  Goodnow,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  54 

frdm  Hazelhurst,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  54 

to  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood.' Ill  620 

from  Manson  and  Bradley,  rates  on  bolts,  reasonable- 
ness of,  and  refund XIV  805 

from  Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis.,  group  rates  on 

coal VI  436 

— — from  Smith's  Spur,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  725 

from  Star  Laike,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs V  596 

from  Velasco,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  770 

from  Velasco  Jet.,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  274 

^  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  slaked 

lime,  and  refund XV  162 

-,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  490 


Merrillan,   village   of   (Pearl  st.    and   Main  st.),    railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XIV  315 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  635 

Merrimac  to  Jefferson,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  waste. .VIII  553 

,  station  facihties  and  railroad  crossing IX  50 

Merton  to  Chestnut  st.,  Milwaukee,  ice  rates IV  71 

Middleton,  spur  track,  switch  connection,  protection  of XV  306 

,  telephone  service XIII  399 

and  Verona   (between),  telephone  utilities,  physical 

connection XV  286 

Mifllin,  town  of,  Iowa  county,  electric  utility,  certificate  of 

public  convenience  and  necessity X  603 


Localities  Index  771 


Vol.  and  Page 

Mifflin,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XV  185 

Mignon  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Mikana,  telephone  utilities,  refusal  to  extend  service .XV  499 

Milan,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of X  399 

Millston  (about  800  ft.  northwest),  (immediately  southeast), 

railroad  crossings,  protection  of XII  400 

Milltown,  station  facilities  and  train  service,  adequacy  of.... XI  627 

Milton,  electric  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  206 

,  telephone  rates VI  542 

Milton  Jet.,  electric  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  325 

-^ ,  (1  mile  north  of),  Nelson  highway,  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of IX  379 

— ■ — ,  telephone  rates VI  542 

Milwaukee  to  Wis.  points,  articles  constituting  personal  bag- 
gage  VIII  115 

• to  Wis.  points,  application  of  the  Milwaukee  &  Fox 

River  Valley  R.  Co.  for  certificate  of  public  convenience 

and  necessity V  466 

and  Oconomowoc,  interurban  railway  between,  appli- 

tion  for  a  certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity.... I II  288 

r-,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

,  report  of  accidents,  application  of  Ch.  362,  Laws  of   ' 


1905  to  street  railways I  178 

— ,  (Wells  street  between  Second  and  Fifth  streets)  joint 

use  of  tracks,  public  necessity  and  convenience  of XIII  268, 299 

— ,  street  railway    rates XI;  XV  724 

—  and  Calhoun  (between),  interurban  rates,  reasonable- 
ness of XIII  475 

—  and  Brown  Deer,  interurban  rates  and  car  service  be- 
tween  VIII  734 

—  and  Watertown,  withdrawal  of  commutation  rate  be- 
tween  Ill  330 

—  and  Waukesha  (between),  interurban  rates X  306 

—  and  Wauwatosa    (between),   street  railway   service, 
adequacy  of I  689 

—  and ,  rates  (between),  street  railway  fare  limits, 

extension  of  single  fare  limits X  337 

—  and  West  Allis  (between),  suburban  rates,  reasonable- 
ness of XIII  475 

—  and (between),  street  railway  fare  limits,  extension 

of  single  fare  limits X  314 

— ,  street  railway,  suburban  rates XV  330 

— ,  street  railway,  routing  of  cars VIII  295,  535;  XIV  788 

— ,  street  railway  service,  adequacy  of 

I  662;  VII  19;  XI  338,  430;  XIII  178;  XV  593 

—  to  Brown  Deer,  interurban  car  service IX  534 

— ,  Lake  Park,  street  railway  service,  adequacy  of IV  439 

— ,  street  railways,  stopping  of  cars Ill  392 

— ,  street  railways,  double  transfers X  352 


772  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Milwaukee,  electric  rates IX  541;X613 

,  electric  power  rates  for  charging  automobiles VI  64 

,  express  delivery  ser\4ce Ill  556 

.    to  Wis.  points  reached  by  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.,  Amer.  Ex-    ^ 
press  Co.,  U.   S.   Express  Co.,  National  Express  Co., 
Northern  Express  Co.,  The  Adams  Express  Co.,  and 

'      Western  Express  Co XII  1 

,  gas  rates,  reasonableness  of XII  .  441 

,  heating  rates,  reasonableness  of II  302 

,  issue  of  license  to  company  to  deal  in  securities XIV  140 

,  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades IX  193 

,  (Aldrich  st.  crossing  of  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  by  C.  M.  &  St. 


P.  R.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  147 

— ,  (Auer  avenue)  railroad  crossing,  protection  of ..XI  -353 

— ,  ("Beer  Tracks"  at  Humboldt  ave.  and  north  to  Keefe 

ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  353 

— ,  (Booth  street),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of XI  353 

— ,  (Bremen  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  353 

— ,  (Brown  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  350 

— ,  (Burleigh  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of .XI  353 

— ,  (Center  street,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  350 

— ,  (Chambers  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  353 

— ,  (Cherry  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  350 

— ,  (Clark  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  350 

— ,    (Clinton    street),    railroad    crossing,    separation    of 

grades IX  193 

— ,  (Concordia  avenue),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of.  .XI  353 
— ,  (east  and  west  alley  in  block  10),  railroad  crossing, 

separation  of  grades IX  193 

— ,  (east  and  west  alley  in  block  34),   railroad  crossing, 

separation  of  grades IX  193 

— ,  (Erie  street),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of XI  344 

— ,  (First  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of... XI  360 

— ,  (Florida  street),  railrpad  crossing,  separation  of  grades.  IX  193 

— ,  (Fratney  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  353 

— ,  town  of,  Milwaukee  county,  (Green  Bay  road),  rail- 
road crossing,  protection  of XI  615 

— ,    (Greenfield    ave.),    railroad   crossing,    separation    of 

grades IX  193 

— ,  (Greenfield  ave.)  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  344 

— ,  (Humbolt  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  353 

— ,  (Keefe  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  353 

— ,  (Lake  street),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades XI  .  193 

— ,  (Locust  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  353 

— ,  (Maple  street),  railmad  crossing,  protection  of XI  344 

— ,  (Mineral  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  344 

— ,  (Muskegoave.)  railroad  crossing,  protection  of IX  515 

— ,  (National  ave.),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of XI  344 

— ,  (National  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades. IX  193 


Localities  Index  773 


Vol.  and  Page 

Milwaukee,  (North  ave.)>  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  353 

,  (north  and  south  alley  in  block  16),  railroad  crossing, 

separation  of  grades IX  193 

,  (Oregon  street),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades.  IX  193 

,  town  of,  Milwaukee  county    (Port  Washington  road). 


railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  615 

— ,  (Reed  street),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades IX  193 

— ,  (Second  and  Clybourn  streets),  railroad  crossings,  pro- 
tection of XI  344 

— ,  (South  Water  street),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of 

grades ^ ' IX  193 

— ,  (between  Thirty-fifth  street  and  Fond  du  Lac  ave.), 

railroad  crossings,  protection  of... XI  350 

— ,  (Walker  street),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades.  IX  193 

— ,  (Walnut  street),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of XI  350 

— ,  (Washington  street),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of... XI  344 

— ,  (Washington  street),  railroad  crossings,  separation  of 

grades IX^  193 

— ,  discrimination  between  different  transfer  companies. ...VIII  569 

— ,  Juneau  park  front,  between  Juneau  ave.  and  Wis.  st., 

nuisances  due  to  switching  etc IX  394 

— ,  unloading  points  within  city  limits,  computation  of 

distance  tariffs IX  347 

— ,  spur  track,  construction  of IV  426 

—  to  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  and  G.  M.  &  St.  P. 

R.,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  liquor XI  424 

—  from  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.,  joint  rates  on 

grain IV    .  80 

—  from  Wis.  points  on  W.  C.  R.,  rates  on  ,tanbark, 
reasonableness  of,  and  refund II  761 

^^ —  to  Wis.  points,  reduction  of  rates  on  boxes XI  101 

—  from  points  in  southwestern  Wis.,  rates  on  cheese, 
reasonableness  of I  143 

—  from  Wis.  points,  rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of I  124 

—  from  Wis.  points,  grain,  minimum  carload  weights Ill  182 

— ^  from  Wis.  points  through  Fond  du  Lac,  refund  on  ship- 
ments of  live  stock ...r VIII  532 

—  to  Wis.  points,  less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum 

products VI  326 

—  from  Wis.  points,  with  stoppage  in  transit  at  Hudson, 

refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  488 

—  from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark Ill  181 

—  to  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  vehicles  and 
agricultural  implements VII       •       17 

— ,  refund  from  demurrage  charges  due  to  error  in  ship- 
ping directions V  137 

— ,  switching  rates XIV  261;  XV  564 

—  and  the  County  Institutions  near  Wauwatosa,  switch- 
ing charges  between HI  377 


774  Localities  Index 


y 


Vol.  and  Page 
Milwaukee  from  Ablemans,  refund  on  shipments  of  granite 

blocks XIII  669,  671 

to  Appleton,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

to   Beaver   Dam,   refund    on   shipment   of  foundry 

patteriis VIII  325 

from  Blue  Mounds,  refund  onshipment  of  livestock IX  74 

from  Boehms,  Mclnnis,  Scott's  Landing,  and  Teddy, 

refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

to    Cashton,    refund    on    shipment    of    agricultural  - 

implements Ill  114 

,  Chestnut  St.,  from  Merton,  ice  rates IV  71 

from  Corning,  refund  on  shipment  of  rye IX  62 

from  Crandon,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  400 

and  Cudahy  from  Wis.  points,  rates  on  live  stock, 

reasonableness  of I  778 

from  Dane,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain... Ill  391 

from  De  Soto,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  781 

to  Fond  du  Lac,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer XIII  42 

from  Fond  du  Lac,  refund  on  shipment  of  cheese VI  579 

to  Fox  River  Valley  points,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

from  Hawkins,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood VIII '  62 

— —  from  Hixton,  refund  on  shipment  of  oats V  430 

to  Horicon,  refund  on  shipments  of  slag XIII  640 

to  Horicon,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  sand,   and 

refund XV  164 

to  Hurley,  refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  766 

from  Independence,  refund  on  shipments  of  oats  and 

rye V  430 

from  Janesville,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  rye,  and 


refund : XV  524 

—  from  Kendall,  refund  on  shipment  of  oats Ill  182 

—  to  Kenosha,  refund  on  shipment  of  structural  iron VI  540 

—  from  Knowles,  refund  on  shipment  of  flux  stone IV  114 

—  and  La  Crosse  (between),  reasonableness  of  rates  on 

bottles,  and  refund ,. XV  82 

—  to  Lake,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal,  feed  and  refuse.  .X  370 

—  to  Madison,  refund  on  shipment  of  paper V  293 

—  from  Manitowoc,  refund  on  shipments  of  hay V  480 

—  from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  531 

—  to  Mayville,  refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron VI      205,  548 

—  from  Mellen,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber.... XII  239 

—  to  Necedah,  refund  on  express  shipments  of  baskets....III  342 

—  from  Neenah,  refund  oji  shipment  of  barley Ill  451 

—  to  Oshkosh,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer XIII  42 

—  from  Oshkosh,  refund  on  shipments  of  bottle  wrappers.  IV  333 

—  to  Oshkosh,  rates  on  cement,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund : II  298 

—  from  Oshkosh  and  Fond  du  Lac,  rates  on  coal,  reason- 
ablenessof,  andrefund XIV  746 


Localities  Index  775 


Vol.  and  Page 

Milwaukee  from  Owen,  refund  on  shipment  of  grain XI  272 

to  Palmyra,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  791 

to  Portage,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal VIII  542 

from  Portage,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  sand  and 

refund XV  648 

from  Portage,  refund  on  shipments  of  sand XIIJ  684 

,  Racine  and  Kenosha  from  Rhinelander  and  Odanah, 


reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber,  and  refund -. XV  575 

—  from   Reedsville,   refund   on   demurrage  charges   on 

shipment  of  hay IX  60 

—  from  Richfield,  rates  on  grain,  and  refund  on  shipments. XI II  375 

—  from  Ridgeland,  refund  on  shipment  of  buckwheat IX  43 

—  from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

—  and  Sheboygan  (between),  reasonableness  of  rates  on 

scrap  iron XIII  366 

—  from  Silver  Springs,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on 

shipment  of  ice IX  101;  XI  62 

—  to  South  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  173 

—  from   ,    refund    on    shipments    of    empty    beer 

packages IV  403 

—  and ,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal  and  coke VIII  473 

—  to  and  Cudahy,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal, 

coke,  etc VII  1 

—  from ,  refund  on  shipments  of  hardware VIII  316 

—  from  Stetsonville,  refund  on  shipment  of  grain IX  468 

—  to  Stevens  Point,  Granite  and  Amherst,  refund  on 

shipment  of  bags IX  182 

—  to  Superior,  refund  on  shipment  of  heating  apparatus. XI I  699 

—  from  Sussex,  reasonableness  of  rates,  on  skimmed  milk.XV  532 

—  to  Troy  Center,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  75 

—  from  Waukesha,  refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  518 

—  from ,  rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of V  546 

—  to ,  rates  on  shipments  of  bottles,  reasonableness  of 

and  refund XIV  77 

—  from ,  refund  on  shipment  of  gravel  and  crushed 


stone XIII  368 

—  to ,  refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron Ill  383 

—  from  — — ,  refund  on  shipment  of  stone IX  167 

—  to  Wausau,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

—  to  Wauwatosa,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal VIII  477 

—  to ,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal VI  531 

—  from  Westboro,  refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark XIII  378 

—  to    West    Milwaukee,    switching    rates    on    building 

material  and  refund  on  shipments XIII  673 

—  to  Wis.  River  Valley  points,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

—  (AUis),  station  facilities IV  161 

—  (between    North    Ave.    and    Folsom    st,),     station 

facihties,  and  train  service XII  439 


776  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Milwaukee   (northern  section),  station  facilities  and  train 

service,  adequacy  of XI  333 

,  telephone  rates  from  hotel  rooms V  678;  VI  432 

,  telephone  service  and  facilities Ill  186 

,    telephone   service,   regulation   requiring   deposit   as 

prerequisite  for  service IV  150 

,  telephone  service,  "silent  number"  phones ...XIII  587 

to  Seymour,  railroad  freight  service ,.XIII  322 

to  Shiocton,  railroad  freight  service XIII  322 

to  Black  Creek,  railroad  freight  service XIII  322 

to ,  Shiocton   and    Seymour,   train   service,    ade- 


quacy of IX  530 

(State  Fair  Park),  train  service,  adequacy  of XV  110 

,  uniform  accounts,  water  utilities VIII  406 

,  water  meters,  installation  of XI  195 

Mineral  Point,  railroad'  crossing,  restoration  and  mainten- 

nance  of  highway VIII  693 

from  points  on  G.  &  N.  W.  R.,  reasonableness  of  rates 

on  cheese .XV  217 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  C.  M.  &  St. 

P.  R.  and  M.  Pt.  &  N.  R.,  establishment  of  joint  rates  on 

zinc  ore VII  583 

,  telephone  rates IX  285;  XV  182 

,  telephone  switching  rates ; XV  70 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XV  185 

,  telephone  utilities,  reapportionment  of  toll  earnings XV  60 

and  Dodgeville,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connec- 
tion  IX  285 

and  Highland  (between),   train  service,  adequacy  of... XI  643 

— — and  Janesville  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of XI  569 

Minnesota  Jet.  from  La  Crosse,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains  V  705 

,  train  service VI  581 

Minocqua  and  Tomahawk,  from  Wausau,  rates  on  ship- 
ments of  beer,  reasonableness  of,  and  refund XIV  508 

from  Wausau,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber  and 

refund XV  521 

from  Wausau,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer XIII  527 

Mondovi  from  Richland  Center,  refund  on  shipments  and 

joint  rates  on  empty  cheese  boxes V  551 

,  train  service  on  the  Mondovi  branch  of  the  C.  St.  P. 

M.  &  O.  R Ill  578 

Monico  to  Black  Creek,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs VIII  544 

Monroe,  electric  rates XIV  227 

-- —  (Main  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIV      -     176 

(Payne  street  and  Madison  street),  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of XIV  118 

from  Madison,  car  service,  refrigerator  cars IX  240 

from  Racine  Jet.,  refund  on  shipments  of  springs IV  384 

from ,  rates  on  vehicle  springs VIII  36 


Localities  Index  111 


Vol.  and  Page 
Monroe  to  West  Bend,  refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron  and 

establishment  of  joint  rate : VIII  328 

to ,  refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron IV  268 

Montello,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  724 

and  Packwaukee  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of  ..II  355 

Montfort  Jet.  to  Benton,  Cuba  City,  Livingston,  Platteville 

and  Rewey,  train  service,  adequacy  of X  500 

Montfort,  water  rates  and  accounting  precedure XI  278 

Monticello,  electric  rates XI  265 

,  (about  %  miles  north)  (Woolen  Mills  crossing),  rail- 
road crossing,  separation  of  grades XII  749 

from  Madison,  car  service,  refrigerator  cars IX  240 

,  train  service IX  389 

Montpelier,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  lines XIV  219 

Montrose,  town  of    (Gribbin's  crossing),  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of XIII  613 

Moorland   (M.  L.  H.  &  T.  crossing),  interurban  railway 

crossing,  protection  of XII  358 

(C.  &  N.  W.  R.  crossing),  railroad  crossing,  protection 

of XII  358 

Morehouse,  train  service Ill  262 

Mormon    Coulee   Road    (crossing   near   Calvert),   railroad 

grade  crossing,  protection  of VIII  519 

Moseley,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection IX  189 

Mosinee,  electric  rates  for  pumping XIV  743 

,  electric  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  712 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIV  553;  XV  311 

,  telephone  rates XIV  709 

Mountain  from  Oakfield,  refund  on  shipments  of  lime VII  ■,  149 

to  Oshkosh,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of.  II  116 

Mt.  Horeb,  electric  rates VI  44;  XIII  653 

(Sixth  street),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades XII    ,        495 

(1st,  2nd,  4th  and  8th  streets),  railroad  crossings,  pro- 
tection of ; X  623 

from  La  Farge,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  528 

,  station  facilities XII  369 

and  Madison,  train  service  between VIII  320 


Mt.  Pleasant,  town  of,  Green  county    (Woolen  Mills  cross- 
ing), railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades XII  749 

Mukwonaga    (crossing    %  mile  south)    (crossing  0.9   mile 

south)  (Front  crossing),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of... XIII      •      32 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XV  397 

,  warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way XIV  251 

Muscoda,  toll  bridge  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  47 

,  telephone  rates,  reasonableness  of XI  666 

,  town  of,  telephone  utilities,  extension  of  line ..XV  166 

,  telephone  utilities,  adequacy  of  service XV  578 


778  Localities  Index 


IS 

I 

Vol.  and  Page 
Necedah  from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  express  shipments  of 

baskets Ill  342 

,  telephone  rates  and  service >. VIII  399 

Neenah  to  Oshkosh,  interurban  passenger  cars,  heating  facili- 
ties  ' Ill  400 

,  interurban  rates  and  fare  zones VIII  709 

,  joint  rates  and  interchange  of  traffic  between  street 

railway  and  interurban  railway IV  471 

,  joint  street  railway  rates  between  the  Wis.  Tr.  Lt. 

H.  &  P.  Co.,  and  the  Wis.  El.  R.  Co VI      398,  690 

,  municipal  acquisition  of  business  of  electric  utility XV  626 

,  gas  rates VII  477;  VIII  251 

,  railroad  grade  crosgting,  protection  of VIII  463 

— —  from  Wis.  points  on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.,  reduc- 
tion of  rates  on  wood XI  393 

Menasha  from  Wis.  points  on  W.  C.  R.,  rates  on  pulp 

wood,  reasonableness  of I  234 

to  Wis.  points,  reduction  of  rates  on  pulp  wood IX  111 

— - —  from  Arpin,  rates  on  shipment  of  fuel  wood  and  fence  ^ 

posts,  reasonableness  of  and  refund... XIV  707 

from  Embarrass,  wood  bolts,  reasonableness  of  rates.. ..IV  248 

from  Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis.,  group  rates  on  coal...  VI  436 

■ to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  barley Ill  451 

• ,  water  rates  and  service , XI  119 

Nekoosa  from  Wis.  points  on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R., 

reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  393 

from   Rhinelander,   restoration   of  joint   commodity 

rate VIII  58 

• from  Wis.  points,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on 

shipment  of  pulp  wood IX  111 

to  Janesville,   reasonableness  of  rates  on  rye,   and 

refund XV  524 

from  Lake  Michigan  ports  in  Wis.  group  rates  on  coal.VI  436 

Neillsville  to  Dunham,  refund  on  shipment  of  potatoes VI  667 

,  telephone  rates...! \ XIV  407 

Neopit  to   Crandon,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and 

establishment  of  joint  rate VIII  247 

to  Horicon,  petition  for  joint  rates  and  refund  on 

shipments VIII  247 

Neshkoro,  electric  rates .- VIII  52 

New  Auburn,  telephone  rates IV  259 

New  Berlin,  interurban  car  service,  stopping  of  cars V  525 

,  town  of  (crossings  at  Moorland  and  Sunny  Slope), 

railroad  and  interurban  railway  crossings,  protection  of . ...  XI I  358 

Newbold,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  326 

Newburg,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 


Localities  Index  779 


Vol.  and  Page 

New  Glarus,  electric  rates XI  53 

,  train  service IX  389 

,  water  rates XI  711 

New  Holstein,  grade  crossing,  protection  of IV  364 

,  Chilton,  Hay  ton  and  Kiel  from  Manitowoc,  joint  rates 

on  barley,  reasonableness  of I  69 

,  Kiel,  Elkhart  and  Chilton  from  Manitowoc,  joint  rates, 

establishment  of I  19 

to    Sheboygan,    joint    rates    on    barley    established 

between  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  Co.  and  the  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  Co V  668 

,  train  service VI  5 

New  Lisbon  (Marshall  crossing  near),  railroad  grade  crossing 

protection  of VIII  511 

,  telephone  rates XV  280 

,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  '  399 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XII  213 

,  train  service VI  534 

New  London  to  La  Crosse,  rates  on  slab  wood,  reasonable- 
ness of,  and  refund XIV  138 

from  Watertown,  refund  on  shipment  of  coke VIII  566 

from  Wausau,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber  and 

wooden  boxes XIII  772 

from ,  refund  on  shipments  of  wooden  boxes XIII  698 

Jet.,  train  service,  adequacy  of XV  588 

New  Richmond  (Second  st.),  (Third  st.),  railroad  crossings, 

protection  of XV  752 

from  Knapp,  rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund II  610 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  615 

,  station  facilities  and  public  convenience*  and  necessity 

for  union  station XIV  556 

,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XV  241 

,  Apple   river  in,   franchise  to  construct  water  power 

dam XV  712 

Newry,  station  facilities VI  1 

,  switch  connections,  establishment  of II  66 

North  Fond  du  Lac,  from  Racine,  reasonableness  of  .rates 

on  coke XIII  694 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of I  27,  60 

North  Freedom,  Reedsburg  and  Ablemans  to  Basco,  joint 

rates  on  grain,  establishment  of I  599 

North  Kaukauna,  railroad  crossings,  separation  of  grades. ...IX  322 
North  Lake  (1  mile  east  of),  (Monsted  crossing),  railroad 

crossing,  protection  of..... XI  606 

North    Menomonie,    train    service    and    station    facilities, 

adequacy  of X  478 

North  Milwaukee,  electric  rates IV  89 


780  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
North  Milwaukee  to  Racine  Jet.,  refund  on  shipment  of  auto 

gear  frames XI  709 

North  Prairie  from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments  and 

reduction  of  joint  rates V  655 

Norwalk,  telephone  rates XV  222 

Norwood,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  329 

o 

Oak  Center,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  683 

Oakfield  to  Hackley  and  Mountain,  refund  on  shipments  of 

lime '. VII  149 

to  Fond  du  jLac,  telephone  rates XIII  726 

Oakwood  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime... XI  419 
Oconomowoc  and  Milwaukee,  interurban  railway  between, 

application  for  a  certificate  of  public  convenience  and 

necessity Ill  288 

(Main  St.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  84 

,  water  rates,  minimum  charge XIV  394 

Oconto,  electric  rates XII  584 

to  Marinette,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber IX  37 

,  switch  connections VIII  67 

,  regulations  as  to  payment  of  rates V  691 

,  water  meters,  location  of....: X  584 

-,  water  rates VII  497;  VIII  388 

Odanah    and    Rhinelander    to    Milwaukee,    Racine    and 

Kenosha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber,  and  refund. XV  575 

to  Sparta,  refund  of  drayage  charges VIII  507 

Okauchee,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of II  88 

Omdoll's    crossing,    between    Palmyra    and    Whitewater, 

station  facilities  for  milk  shipments XII  696 

Onalaska,  street  railway,  service  and  station  facilities VI  124 

,  telephone  rates XV  831 

Oostburg,  telephone  rates IV  407 

Oregon,  telephone  rates Ill  534 

,  Waaler  rates ". XI  548 

Osceola,  town  of,  railroad  crossing,  change  of  location IX  339 

from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipment  of  grain V  291 

from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  rye  and 

barley IV  483 

from  Almena,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

from  Amery,  Hillsdale  and  'Poskin  Lake,  refund  on 

shipments  of  grain V  291 

to  Rhinelander,  rates  on  shipment  of  hay,  reason- 
ableness of  and  refund XIV  759 

from  Ridgeland,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

,  switch  connections,  adequacy  of I  166,  204,  608;  XV  416 

Oshkosh,  safety  of  bridges VIII  441 


Localities  Index  781 


Vol.  and  Page 
Oshkosh  (West  Algoma  street  bridge),  highway  bridge  over 

which  railway  is  operate^,  safety  of IX  357 

,  interurban  rates  and  fare  zones VIII  709 

and  Fond  du  Lac,  interurban  railway  rates  and  fare 

zones VI  473 

to    Neenah,    interurban    passenger    cars,    heating 

facihties Ill  400 

• ,  railroad  grade  crossings,  protection  of VIII    75,  291 

• ,  town  of  (immediately  south  of  depot  at  state  hospital), 

railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII        '    372 

,  demurrage  charges  on  shipments  of  logs XIII  633 

from  Wis.  points  on  La  Farge  branch  of  C.  M.  &  St. 

P.  R.,  reduction  of  rates  on  lumber VIII  131 

from  Catawba,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood.. VI  669 

and  Fond  du  Lac  to  Milwaukee,  rates  on  coal,  reason- 
ableness of  and  refund XIV  746 

to ,  refund  6n  shipments  of  fruit V  675 

to  Fort  Atkinson,  refund  on  shipment  of  motor  boat. ...IV  498 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  531 

and  Menasha,  from  points  in  Wis.  on  the  M.  St.  P.  & 

S.  S.  M.  R.,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  bolts,  and  refund. ... XV  178 

from  Milwaukee,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer XIII  42  ' 

from ,  rates  on  cement,  reasonableness  of  and  re- 
fund  ■ II  298 

to ,  refund  on  shipments  of  bottle  wrappers IV  333 

from  Mountain,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of II  116 

from  Racine  and  Racine  Jet.,  refund  on  shipment  of 

springs  and  axles IX  180 

from ,  refund  on  shipment  of  vehicle  springs VIII  283 

and  Readfield  from  Shawano,  rates  on  lumber,  reason- 
ableness of II  ,  775 

from  Rice  Lake,  rates  on  pine  trimmings,  reasonableness 

of I  197^ 

to  Ripon,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  484 

,  sleeping  car  service,  adequacy  of XV  606 

,  water  utility,  municipal  acquisition XII  602 

Osseo,  telephone  rates XII  126 

Owen  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  grain XI  272 

,  telephone  service XIII  538 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XIV  419 

P 

Packwaukee  and  Montello   (between),  train  service,  ade- 
quacy of II  355 

Palmyra  from  Milwaukee,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  791 

,  (gravel  pit  near)  switch  connections IX  156 

,  telephone  rates XV  397 

Pardeeville,  electric  rates II  135 


782  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Park  Falls  from  Ellis  Jet.,  reduction  of  joint  rate  and  refund 

on  shipment  of  pulp XI  699 

to  Kimberly,  cancellation  of  joint  trainload  rates  on 

pulp  wood VIII  105 

,  telephone  rates XV  180 

,  water  rates r. XV  284 

Patzu,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XI  318 

Pembine  from  Goodman,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  41 

Pepin,  train  service,  adequacy  of II       ,        765 

Peshtigo,  from  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.W.  R.,  rates  on 

shipment  of  logs,  reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  624 

,  from  Brown's  Spur  and  Bagley  Jet.,  reasonableness  of 

rates  on  logs,  and  refund XV  43 

from  Taylor  Rapids,  rates  on  cedar  posts,  reasonable- 
ness of,  and  refund XIV  188 

Peterson's  Spur  to  Ashland,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  193 

Pewaukee  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

,  telephone  rates... Ill  420;  VII  465 

,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  131 

.,  train  service XII  690 

Phillips  from  Kennan,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  ship- 
ments of  wood XIII  687 

Phlox,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  329 

Pittsville,  train  service,  adequacy  of , XIV  573 

Plain,  telephone  rates VI  549;  XIV  157 

Platteville,  telephone  rates  and  discrimination VII  608;  X  534 

,  telephone  utilities,  interference  of  high  voltage  trans- 
mission lines XV  622 

fromMontfort  Jet.,  train  service,  adequacy  of X  500 

Pleasant  Prairie,  town  of    (Spring  Brook  road  at  Bain  sta- 
tion), railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  557 

,  town  of  (Bain  station),  station  facilities,  adequacy  of.... XI  578 

Plover  (First  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  727 

Plymouth,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

,  station  facilities ; VII  770 

,  telephone  rates .' IX  169 

Polk,  town  of  (Fond  du  Lac  or  Rothenbach  crossing,  north 

of  Rugby  Jet.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  575 

,  town  of  (north  of  Rugby  Jet.),  railroad  crossing,  pro- 
tection of XI  589 

Policy,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of IX  342 

Portage  electric  rates II  258 

gas  rates :?: XIII  136 

(Cass  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XIII  749 

from  Wis.. points,  concentration  rates  on  butter  and 

eggs Ill  1 

to  Milwaukee,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  sand,  and 


refund XV  648 

—  from ,frefund  on  shipments  of  coal VIII  542 


Localities  Index  783 


Vol.  and  Page 

Portageto  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  sand XIII  G84 

to  Racine,  refund  on  shipment  of  sand XIII  684 

and  Kilbourn  (between),  station  facilities,  adequacy  of. . I  254 

and  Wyocena    (sand  and  gravel  bed  between),  spur 

track VI  556 

,  telephone  rates II  692 

aAd  points  wtsst,  train  service :...XII  560 

and  Madison,  train  service  between XII  560 

and  Stevens  Point  (between),  train  service,  adequacy 

of II  32,  92 

Port  Edwards  from  Wis.  points,  reduction  of  rates  and  re- 
fund on  shipment  of  pulp  wood IX  111 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.,  re- 
duction of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  393 

from  Grand  Rapids,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  "hog 

fuel",  and  refund XV  527 

from  Rhinelander,  restoration  of  joint  commodity  rate..  VI 1 1  58 

Port  Washington  (Park  ave.)  (Webster  street),  interurban 

railway  crossings,  protection  of XII  550 

,  town  of,  Ozaukee  county   (Knellsville  crossing),  inter- 
urban crossing,  protection  of XII  550 

from  Antigo  (Heinemann's  Mill),  refund  on  shipments 

of  slabs  and  slabwood VI  222 

from  Crandon,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood Ill  594 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Porter's  Mills,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  ^  8 

Poskin  Lake  to  Osceola,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

Potter,  station  facilities XII  552 

Prairie  du  Chien,  electric  rates  and  service XII  413 

,  telephone  utility,  checking  station,  establishment  of. ..XIV  568 

and  Bridgeport  (between),  telephone  rates XII  140 

and  Eastman  (between),  telephone  rates XII  140 

and  Madison  (between),  Sunday  train  service,  ade- 
quacy of XV  652 

Prairie  du  Sac,  municipal  acquisition,  electric  utility...... XV  360 

• ,  regulation  of  height  of  dam XV  471 

from  Richland  Center,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber 

and  reduction  of  rates VI  184 

,  telephone  rates ,VI  549;  XI  42 

Prentice,  train  service,  adequacy  of XIII  790 

Prescott,  electric  service IX  222 

— ^ — ,  telephone  rates XIV  701 

Princeton,  from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber 

and  reduction  of  joint  rates V  647 

,  bridged  telephone  service v XV  475 

Progress,  train  service VI  534 

Pulaski  to  Marinette,  refund  on  shipment  of  oats V  432 

,  telephone  service,  withdrawal  of X  558 


784  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Quarry,  station  facilities  and  passenger  rates I  285 

R 

Racine  (5  mile  road  north  of),  interurban  railway  crossing, 

protection  of X  420 

,  interurban  railway  service XII  388 

and  Caledonia  (between),  interurban  rates,  commu- 
tation tickets XIII  475 

— \ — ,  street  railway  service  and  rates XIV  148 

,  gas  rates VI  228 

(43^  miles  north  of),,  railroad  crossing,  separation  of 

grades... X  618;   XIV  454 

(Eleventh  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  407 

(Maple  street),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades 

at  Mound  ave XI  740;  XIV,  783 

(Mound  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades  .XI  740 

(Ninth  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XII  407 

(Rapids  Road),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of ...IX  354 

(Racine   street),    (Sixteenth   street),    (Tenth   street),  ' 

(Thirteenth  street),  (Twlefth  street),  railroad  crossings 

protection  of XII  407 

,  spur  track,  construction  of XIV  114 

,  demurrage  charges  on  shipments  of  stone XIV  449 

from  Beaver,  refund  on  shipment  of  slabs VI  199 

to  Green  Bay  and  Oshkosh,  refund  on  shipment  of 

springs  and  axles IX  180 

,  Kenosha  &  Milwaukee  from  Rhinelander  and  Odanah, 

reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber,  and  refund XV  575 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  531 

to  North  Foi)d  du  Lac,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  coke... XIII  694 

to  Oshkosh,  refund  on  shipment  of  vehicle  springs VIII  283 

from  Portage,  refund  on  shipment  of  sand XIII  684 

from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

to  Stoughton,  refund  on  shipment  of  vehicle  springs....  VI 1 1  36 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

from ,  refund  on  shipment  of  gravel  and  crushed 

stone XIII  368 

from  Weyerhauser,  refund  on  shipments   and    reduc- 


tion of  joint  rates V  655 

-,  water  utility,  municipal  acquisition X  543 


Racine  Jet.  from  Beaver  Dam,  rates  on  castings,  reason- 
ableness of  and  refund II  703 

to  Green  Bay  and  Oshkosh,  refund  on  shipment  of 

springs  and  axles IX  180 


Localities  Index  785 


Vol.  and  Page 
Racine  Jet.  to  Janesville,  Monroe,  vStoughton,  Edgcrton  and 

Madison,  rates  on  vehicle  springs .' VIII  36 

to  Monroe  and  Stoughton,  refund  on  shipments  of 

springs IV  384 

from  North  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  auto 

gear  frames XI  709 

from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

^om  Waukesha,  refund   on  shipment  of  gravel  and 

crushed  stone XIII  368 

from ,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Raddison  to  Birch  wood,  reasonablesness  of  rates  on  logs' V  441 

Randolph,  town  of  Courtland    (2}4  miles  west),    railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XII  501 

,  telephone  rates XI  499 

,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  92 

Random  Lake  {%  mile  south),  railroad  crossing,  protection 

of XII  516 

to    Sheboygan,    joint    rates    on    barley    established 

between  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R V  ,    668 

,  telephone  rates XI  130 

,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  802 


Readfield  and  Oshkosh  from  Shawano,  rates  on  lumber, 

reasonableness  of II  775 

,  station  facilities,  and  train  service XII  506 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XIV  102 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of XIV  247 

from  Wis.  points,  concentration  rates  on  butter  and 

eggs Ill  32 

from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  eggs Ill     335,  338 


Reedsburg,  Ablemans,  North  Freedom  to  Basco,  joint  rates 

on  grain,  establishment  of I  589 

Reedsville  to  Milwaukee,  refund  of  demurrage  charges  on 

shipment  of  hay IX  60 

Remington,  town  of,  railroad  crossing,  construction  of.. XV  609 

Reserve,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIV  340 

Rest  Lake,  regulation  of  level  and  flow  of  water XV  438 

Rewey,  telephone  rates  and  discrimination VII  608;   X  534 

from  Montfort  Jet.  train  service,  adequacy  of X  500 

Rhine,  town  of,  railroad  crossing,  restoration  and  main- 
tenance of  highway V  184 

Rhinelander,  electric  rates IX  406;  XV  783 

from  Wis.  points,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  pulp  wood  .VIII  105 

,  discrimination  in  switching  rates  on  lumber XI  476 

from  Wis.  points,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs,  and 

refund XV  569 

from  Wis.  points,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on 

shipment  of  pulp  wood IX  111 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  _^S.  S.  M.  R., 

reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  393 


786  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Rhinelander,  rates  on  car  stakes,  reasonableness  of,  and 

refund XIV  204 

,   sw.itching  rates  on  lumber,   reasonableness   of  and 

refund XIV  82 

to  Armstrong  Creek,  refund  on  shipments  of  car  stakes. XI 1 1  84 

from  Gotten,  rates  on  shipment  of  lumber,  reasonable- 
ness of,  and  refund XIV  754 

from ,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber,  and  refund  XV  473 

to  Grand  Rapids,  Pt.  Edwards,  Nekoosa,  and  Stevens 

Point,  and  intermediate  points,  restoration  of  joint  com- 
modity rate VIII  58 

to  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood  pulp IV  360 

to  Madison,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood IV  478 

and   Odanah  to   Milwaukee,   Racine  and   Kenosha, 

reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber  and  refund XV  575 

from  Osceola,  rates  on  shipment  of  hay,  reasonable- 
ness of  and  refund XIV  759 

— —  from  Robbin's  Railway  Transfer,  reasonableness  of 

rates  on  lumber /. XV  388 

from  Robbin's  Railway  Transfer,  reasonableness  of 

rates  on  wood,  and  refund XV  171 

to  Rothschild,  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp VIII  58 

to  Star  Lake,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  125;  XI  434 

to  Stevens  Point,  refund  on  shipment  of  print  paper VI ,  182 

from  Tripoli,  McGord  and  Brantwood,  reasonableness 

of  rates  on  wood,  and  refund XV  171 

to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  768 

to  Whitehall,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber V  729 

,  station  facilities VIII  719 

,  telephone  rates......... II  427 

Rib  Falls  to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  356 

Rib  Lake  to  Chelsea,  railroad  rates VII  401 

to  Spirit  Falls,  operation  of  branch  railroad IV  178;  VII  401 

from  Spirit  Falls,  railroad  rates VII  '  401 

Rice  Lake,  electric  rates VI  717 

— ^  from  Gampia,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs X  564 

to  Ft.  Atkinson,  rates  on  excelsior,  reasonableness  of, 

and  refund XIV  225 

to  Janesville,  refund  on  shipment  of  excelsior Ill  595 

from  La  Crosse,  refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  18 

to  Oshkosh,  rates  on  pine  trimmings,  reasonableness  of.  I  197 

to  Superior,  rates  on  shipment  of  excelsior,  reasonable- 


ness of  and  refund XIV  544 

to  Waukesha,  refund  on  shipments  of  excelsior XIII  635 


Richfield,  railroad  grade  crossing,  protection  of: VIII  287 

— —  (crossing  1  }4  miles  north  of  Colgate),  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of XIII  623 

,  town  of  (south  of  Rugby  Jet.),  railroad  crossing,  pro- 
tection of XI  586 


Localities  Index  787 


Vol.  and  Page 
Richfield  to  Milwaukee,  rates  on  grain,  and  refund  on  ship- 
ments  XIII  375 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Richland  Center,  electric  and  water  rates XIV  590 

from  Blue  River,  refund  on  shipment  of  rye VI  178 

to  Dodgeville,  refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes,  and 

establishment  of  joint  rates IV  450 

to  Lancaster,  refund  on  shipment  of  cheese  boxes IX  517 

to  Mondovi,  refund  on  shipments  and  joint  rates  on 

cheese  boxes V  551 

to  Prairie  du  Sac,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  and 

reduction  of  rates VI  184 

toStoughton,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  32 

,  telephone  rates... IX  369 

,  telephone  rates  and  service Ill  98 

,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XIV  655 

Richmond,  town  of  (one  mile  east  of  Thornton),  railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XIV  546;  XV  309 

Rickerd's  spur  to  Washburn,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs....V  666 

Ridgeland  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  buckwheat.. IX  43 

to  Osceola,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

Rio,  telephone  rates XI  499 

,  telephone  rates  and  service... VIII  92 

Ripon,  electric,  gas  and  water  rates  and  service V  1 

(Doty  street)  (East  Fond  du  Lac  street)  (Fall  street) 

(Fenton  street)  (Jackson  street)  (Scott  street),  railroad 

crossings,  protection  of XII  100 

,  telephone  rates XIV  427 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  refund  on 

shipment  of  logs IX  484 

from  Oshkosh,  Glenbeulah  and  Stratford,  refund  on 

shipment  of  logs "...IX  484 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XI  90 

Ripon  Jet.,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XI  90 

River  Falls  to  Columbus,  rates  on  seed  peas,  reasonableness 

of,  and  refund XIV  97 

from  La  Crosse,  refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  190 

Robbin's  Railway  Transfer  to  Rhinelander,  reasonableness 

of  rates  on  wood,  and  refund 7. XV  171 

to  Rhinelander,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber : . . .  .XV  388 

Roberts,  warehouse  site  on  railroad's  right  of  way V  207 

Rock,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  lines XIV  396,441 

Rock  Elm,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XV  11 

Rockfield,  from  Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood. ...Ill  590 
to  Wis.  points  (designated)  on  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  reason- 
ableness of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 


Rockford,  111,,  from  Butternut,  refund  on  shipment  of  lum- 
ber, legality  of I  300 


788  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Rockland,  town  of,  telephone  rates XI  402 

Rock  river  in  Janesville,    navigable  waters,  obstructions  in 

stream XIV  190 

in  Mayville,  level  and  flow  of  water                                 XV  698 

Romadka,  train  service VI  534 

Rothschild  from  Bagdad,  establishment  of  joint  rates  and 

refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  wood XI  127 

to  Brokaw,  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp IX  400;  XIII  690 

■ from  Rhinelander,  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp VIII  58 

Rugby  Jet.  (1st   crossing  north  of),  railroad  crossing,  pro- 
tection of ..^ XI  589 

(north  of),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  575 

—. —  (south  of),  raifrjoad  crossing,  protection  of XI  586 

Russian  to  Wausau,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  281 

s 

St.  Cloud,  station  facilities XII  519 

St.  Croix  Falls,  town  of  (Pickey's  crossing),  railroad  cross- 
ing, protection  of XII  529 

St.  John,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of I  34 

St.  Joseph,  town  of,  (about  1  }4  miles  northeast  of  Burkhart), 

railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  737 

Salem,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  322 

(1  mile  east  of),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of X  510 

Sauk  City,  railroad  telephone  service,  power  of  state  to 

regulate Ill  346 

,  telephone  rates VI  549 

Saukville  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime... XI  419 
Scandinavia  and  Waupaca  from  Gravel  Pit,  reasonableness 

of  rates  on  sand  and  gravel XV  482 

Schiocton  from  Milwaukee,  train  service,  adequacy  of IX  530 

Schleisingerv^ille   (^   mile  east   of),    (Fernhaber  crossing), 

railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades XI  86 

(1  mile  east  of).  Mud  Lake  crossing,  railroad  crossing, 

protection  of IX  528 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

from  Weyerhauser,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduc- 
tion of  joint  rates V  655 

,  station  facilities VI  663 

Schneider's  Spur  to  Cumberland,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs..V  645 

Schofield,  street  railway  rates  and  service., XV  246 

to  Crandon,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber Ill  467 

Scott,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  802 

Scott's  Landing  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  tan- 
bark XI  537 

Scotts  to  Kenosha,  refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

to  Sheboygan,  refund  on  shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

Seeley  to  Washburn,  refund  on  shipments  of  bolts XII  192 


Localities  Index  789 


Vol.  and  Page 
Sevastopol,    telephone    utility,    certificate    of   public    con- 
venience and  necessity XIV  524 

Seymour  from  Milwaukee,  railroad  freight  service XIII  322 

from  Wis.  points  on  C.  &  N.  W.  R.  reduction  of  joint 


rates VIII  544 

,  Sunday  train  service VIII  524 

from  Milwaukee,  train  service,  adequacy  of IX  530 

Sharon,  municipal  acquisition  of  electric  utility XV  238 

,  gas  and  water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VIII  479 

,  water  rates  and  service XIII  1 

Shawano    to    Oshkosh    and    Readfield,    rates    on    lumber, 

reasonableness  of 1 1  775 

to  Western  Siding,  refund  on  shipment  of  salt VI  497 

Sheboygan,  certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity... XIV  215 

,  electric  rates  and  service II  249;  VI  353 

,  electric  street  lighting  rates XIV  208 

,  gas  rates .^ ^ IX  439;  XI  309 

,  railroad  crossing  facilities :....VIII  467 

,  and  points  on  G.  &  N.  W.  R.  and  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  , 

R,  (between),  rates  on  peas  and  beans XV  641 

from  Adell,  joint  rates  on  barley  established  between 

the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.,  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

from  Algonac,  Boehms,  Bunkers  and  Scotts,  refund  on 

shipment  of  tanbark XI  537 

to  Appleton,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

from  Ghilton,  joint  rates  on  barley  established  between 

the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

from    Elkhart,    joint    rates    on    barley    established 

between  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

to  Fox  River  Valley  points,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

from  Heineman  branch  of  G.  &  N.  W.  R.,  refund  on 

shipment  of  tanbark XI  141 

— —  from  Hilbert  Jet.,  joint  rates  on  barley  established 

between  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

from  Kiel,  joint  rates  on  barley  established  between 

the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R ...V  668 

from  Marshfield,  rates  on  excelsior X  641 

from  Mattoon  Ry.  points,  joint  rates V  531 

and  Milwaukee  (between),  reasonableness  of  rates  on 

scrap  iron XIII  366 

from  New  Holstein,  joint  rates  on  barley  established 

between  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

from  Random  Lake,  joint  rates  on  barley  established 

between  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

and   Sheboygan   Falls    (between),   reasonableness   of 

rates  on  scrap  iron XIII  366 

from  Waldo,  joint  rates  on  barley  established  between 

the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

to  Wausau,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 


790  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

•Sheboygan  to  Wis.  River  Valley  points,  group  rates  on  coal.. VI  436 

,  water  rates. V  434;  XIV  634 

,  water  works,  municipal  acquisition Ill  371 

Sheboygan    Falls,    Green    Bay    road,    railroad    crossing, 

protection  of IX   '  525 

and   Sheboygan    (between),   reasonableness   of  rates 

on  scrap  iron XIII  366 

Shell  Lake,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of  telephone  service.. XV  "   33 

Shennington,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XII  213 

Shepley,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XIII  427 

Sheridan  (550  feet  west  of  depot),  railroad  crossing,  protec- 
tion of , , XI  624 

Sherman,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  757,  802 

Shiocton  from  Milwaukee,  railroad  freight  service XIII  322 

,  telephone  rates XI  180 

Signer  to  Eau  Claire,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood VIII  38 

Silver  Springs  to  Cudahy,  reduction  of  rates  on  ice XI  171 

to   Milwaukee,    reduction   of   rates    and   refund    on 

shipment  of  ice.... IX  101;  XI  62 

Smith's  Spur  to  Merrill,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  725 

Snells  (crossing,  just  north  of),  reconstruction  of  culverts... XV  366 
Snyders  to  Wis.  points  on  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  joint  rates  and 

service XII  761 

Solon  Springs  to  Superior,  East  End  Station,  refund  on 

shipments  of  lumber  and  establishment  of  lower  rate V  721 

Somers,  town  of  (Broesch  road),  inter  urban  railway  crossing, 

protection  of XII  377 

,  town  of  (Berryville  road),  (Burlington  road),  (Hansche 

road),  railroad  crossings,  protection  of XI  581 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Somerset    (Stillwater    road    crossing),    railroad    crossing, 

protection  of XI  730 

South  Janesville,  interurban  railway  rates VI  695 

South  Milwaukee  from  Antigo  (Heinemann's  Mill),  refund 

on  shipments  of  slabs  and  slabwood VI  222 

from  Hatley,  refund  on  shipments  of  cordwood VI  222 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  beer IV  173 

to ,  refund  on  shipments  of  beer  packages IV  403 

from ,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal,  coke,  etc VII  1 

and ,  refund  on  shipments  of  coal  and  coke VIII  473 

to y  refund  on  shipments  of  hardware VIII  316 

South  Range,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of IX  477 

South  Superior,  spur  track Ill  283 

Sparta  (South  Water  St.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of... XI  165 

,  track  connections  and  switching  charges IX  66 

to  Elroy,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal IX  396 

,  Madison,  Janesville,  and  Watertown,  from  Wis.  points 

on  G.  B.  &  W.  R.,  joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness 

of : II  807 


Localities  Index  '  791 


Vol.  and  Page 

Sparta  from  Odanah,  refund  on  drayage  charges VIII  507 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of X  556;  XIII  679;  XV  227 

,  water  rates XII  532 

Spencer  (near  Clark  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of... XIV  108 
(Clark  street)  (Main  street),  railroad  crossings,  pro- 
tection of XII  525 

Spirit  Falls  and  Rib  Lake,  operation  of  branch  line  and  rail- 
road rates IV  178;  VII  401 

Spooner,  telephone  rates XIV  499 

Springbrook,  station  facilities VIII  285 

— — ,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  457 

,  warehouse  site  on  railroad  right  of  way XII  557 

Spring  Green,  telephone  switching  rates XIII  763;  XV  315 

»  telephone  rates VI  549 

Spring  Valley,  electric  rates XII  548 

to  Eau  Claire,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber Ill  66 

to  Woodland,  refund  on  shipment  gf  lumber XII  131 

and  Woodville  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of XIV  775 

Stanley  from  Bellinger  and  Oilman  (siding  between),  refund 

on  shipment  of  posts IX  64 

from  Marinette,  rates  on  carload  of  box  shooks,  reason- 
ableness of,  and  refund XIV  84 

Stanton,  town  of,  Dunn  county  (McCuUoch  crossing),  rail- 
road crossing,  protection  of XI  595 

Star  Lake  to  Grand  Rapids,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of 

and  refund .* II  773 

to  Merrill,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs V  596 

from  Rhinelander,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber. ...VIII  125;  XI  434 

Star  Prairie,  town  of  (Apple  River  in),  franchise  to  construct 

water  power  dam..: XV  712 

Stetsonville  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  grain IX  468 

,  telephone  rates Ill  586;  IX  497 

and  Athens,  telephone  toll  rates  between Ill  586 

and  Curtiss,  telephone  toll  rates  for  n onsubscribers Ill  586 

and  Dorchester,  telephone  toll  rates  for  nonsubscribers ..III  586 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  139 

Stevens  Point,  electric  rates,  gas  and  electric  service XIV  350 

from  Little  Rapids,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp.. ..VIII  64 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  bags IX  182 

from  Rhinelander,  refund  on  shipment  of  print  paper VI  182 

from ;  restoration  of  joint  commodity  rate VIII  58 

and  Portage  (between),  train  service,  adequacy  of II  32,  92 

,  water  rates  and  service VI  458 

Stiles  to  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood  pulp VI  586 

Stiles,  train  service,  adequacy  of II  32 

Stinson  Spur  to  Eau  Claire,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs V  196 

Stockbridge,  proposed  interurban  line V  466 

Stockton,  industrial  track XIII  620 

Stoughton,  electric  rates Ill  484 


792  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
wSloughton,   refund  of  demurrage  charge   on   shipment  of 

lumber VII  388 

from  Kaiser,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  267 

from  Racine,  refund  on  shipment  of  vehicle  springs VIII  36 

from  Racine  Jet.,  rates  on  vehicle  springs VIII  36 

from ,  refund  on  shipments  of  springs IV    ^  384 

from  Richland  Center,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  32 

,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of X  486 

Stratford,  electric  rates  and  service VIII  80 

(Rock  crossing,  about  2  miles  north),   railroad   cross- 
ing, protection  of XIII  729 

to  Fosterville,  refund  on  shipment  of  hay XIII  468 

and  Holder  (between),  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of. 


adequacy  of  train  service  and  station  facilities I  831 

—  to  Ripon,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs IX  484 

train  service,  adequacy  of * II  78 


Strickland,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of II  514 

Sturgeon  Bay,  toll  bridge  rates  and  repairs VII  727 

(north  from),  telephone  utility,  certificate  of  public 

convenience  and  necessity XIV  524 

Sullivan,  town  of  (Jefferson  street  and  Palmyra  road),  rail- 
road crossing,  protection  of XIV  320 

,  town  of,  (Radiske  and  Golden  Lake  crossings),  rail- 
road crossings,  protection  of XIV  320 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 


Summit,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of II  575 

,  train  service Ill  115 

Sunnyside  to  Bayfield,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and 

minimum  weight ...XIV  2^3,601 

— — ,  train  service  and  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  459 

Sunny  Slope  (C.  &  N.  W.  R.  crossing),  railroad  crossing,  ^ 

protection  of XII  358 

(M.  L.  H.  &  T.  crossing),  interurban  railway  crossing, 

protection  of XII  358 

Sun  Prairie,  electric  rates XV  189 

,  station  faciUties,  adequacy  of XIV  332 

,  telephone  rates  and  service VI      187,  647 

Superior,  street  railway  rates XI  1 

,  electric,  gas  and  water  rates,  and  water  service X  704 

,  application  of  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  Co.  for  a 

certificate  of  convenience  and  necessity V  637 

,  construction  of  railroad,  approval  of  specifications II  386 

,  railroad  construction Ill  266 

,  railroad  crossing,  construction  of II  362 

,  town  of,  railroad  crossing,  construction  of XV  300 

,  railroad  crossing,  viaduct VI  674 

,  switching  service,  whether  inter  or  intrastate VI  70 

,  refund  of  excess  switching  charges  on  grain VII  459 

to  Almena,  Amery  and  Dallas,  refund  on  shipment  of 

salt VI  499 


Localities  Index  793 


Vol.  and  Page 

Superior  to  Augusta,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  593 

to  Baldwin,  Eau  Claire  and  other  points  in  N.  W.  Wis. 

on  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  Q.  R.,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of. ...I  767 

from  Bennett,  rates  on  cordwood,  reasonableness  of....  1 1  705 

from  Couderay,  rates  on  lumber V  95 

to  Emerald,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal '. VIII  683 

,   East  End   Station  from   Solon   Springs,   refund   on 

shiprrtents  of  lumber  and  establishment  of  lower  rate V  721 

,  East  End  Yard  to  Itasca  Station,  Superior,  refund  on 

shipment  of  crushed  stone  and  establishment  of  general 

switching  charge V  449 

,  East  End  Yard  to  Itasca  Station,  Superior,  refund  on 

shipment  of  crushed  stone VI  219 

from    Milwaukee,    refund    on    shipment    of  heating 

apparatus XII  699 

from    Rice   Lake,    rates    on   shipment   of   excelsior, 

reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  544 

■ to  Washburn,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  slaked  lime, 

and  refund XV  160 

,,  switching  charges  on  grain V  598 

— — ,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of  telephone  service II  822 

,  grain  elevator,  construction  of I  658 

,  grain  elevators,  discriminatory  leasing  of I  619 

Suring,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection IX  189 

Sussex  to  Milwaukee,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  skimmed 

milk XV  532 

from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  131 

Sycamore  to  Bagley  Jet.,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on 

shipmen-t  of  piling XI  108 

Sylvania,  car  service,  adequacy  of XI  634 

T 

Taycheedah,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIII     '      676 

Taylor  Rapids  to  Peshtigo,  rates  on  cedar  posts,  reason- 
ableness of,  and  refund XIV  188 

Teddy  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shijlment  of  tanbark ....XI  537 

Theresa  (4  miles  south  of),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of.X  493 

,  spur  track ., XI  73 

,  telephone  utilities,  adequacy  of  service XV  582 

,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of  line XIV  402 

Thiensville  from  La  Crosse,  rates  on  dried  brewer's  grains... .V  705 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Thompsonville,  telephone  rates IV  437 

Thorp  (Washington  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of. ...XI  609 

,  station  facilities,  train  service,  and  railroad  crossing XI  153 

Tigerton,  telephone  rates VII  426 

,  telephone  rates XV  552 


794  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Tilden  and  Wheaton  (between),  Cameron  crossing,  (%  mile 
southeast  of  Howard  Siding),  railroad  crossing,  protec- 

^  tionof XV  667 

Tisch  Mills,  telephone  rates XII  169 

Tom  ah   from   Lady  smith    and    Weyerhauser,    refund    on 

shipments  and  reduction  of  joint  rates V  655 

,  station  facilities IX  274 

,  telephone  rates  and  ser\4ce II  296;  VIII  399 

Tomahawk  from  Goodman,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber... VI I  581 

and  Minocqua  from  Wausau,  rates  on  shipments  of 

beer,  reasonableness  of,  and  refund " XIV  508 

from  Wausau,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer XIII  527' 

,  telephone  rates XIII  340 

,  water  rates  and  service VIII  40 

Town  Road,  between  the  towns  of  Watertown  and  Ixonia, 

Jefferson  county,  interurban  railway  service XII  404 

Trego,  telephone  rates XIV  499 

Trempealeau  to  Janesville,  refund  on  shipment  of  buck- 
wheat  : : XIV  771 

Trevor  from  Manitowoc,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal Ill  339 

Tripoli,  McCord  and  Brantwood  to  Rhinelander,  reason- 
ableness of  rates  on  wood,  and  refund XV  171 

Troy  Center  from  La  Crosse,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains  V  705 

from  Milwaukee,  rates  on  coal,  reasonableness  of II  75 

Truesdell  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime. XI  419 

Turtle  Lake,  train  service,  adequacy  of I  512 

Two  Rivers  and  Manitowoc,  interurban  railway  rates VI  395 

from^Wis.  points,  refund  on  shipments  of  bolts  and  logs  IV  355 

u 

Ulao  from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Underbill,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection IX  189 

Union  Grove,  sidetrack X  442 

Unity  to  Colby,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs,  and  refund. . .  .XV  469 

to  Waukesha,  refund  on  shipment  of  cordwood VIII  34 

to  Waukesha,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood IX  165 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of,  railroad  crossing,  protection 

of XIII  430- 

V 

Valley  Jet.,  station  facilities,  adequacy  of XV  670 

Van   Buskirk   and   Carson    (between),   to   Superior,   joint 

rates  on  logs XIV  703 

Vandyne  (south),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XI  733 

to   Milwaukee,    through   Fond   du   LaC,    refund   on 

shipment  of  live  stock VIII  532 


Localities  Index  795 


Vol.  and  Page 
Vaudreuil  from  Black  River  Falls,  railroad  construction, 

certificate  of  public  convenience  and  necessity VII  741 

to  Black  River  Falls,  switch  connections VI  661 

Vaughn,  town  of,  water  rates  and  service XIV  291 

Velasco  to  Merrill,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV     .  770 

Velasco  Jet.  to  Merrill,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  274 

Verona     and     Middleton,     telephone     utilities,     physical 

connection XV  286 

and  Madison,  train  service  between VIII  320 

Vesper  from  Arbor  Vitae,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  21 

to  La  Crosse,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  silos,  and 

refund : XV  442 

to  Grand  Rapids,  refund  on  shipment  of  brick IX  163 

Victory,  station  facilities XII  555 

,  train  service XIV  506 

Vinland,  interurban  rates  and  fare  zones VIII  709 

Viola,  water  mains,  extension  of XIII  702 

Viroqua  from  Wis.  points  on  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and 
L.  C.  &  S.  E.  R.,  establishment  of  concentration  rates 

and  refund  on  shipment  of  tobacco XI  439 

from  Athens,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber XI  447 

,  water  rates XI  330 

w 

Wabeno  to  Wis.  points  on  C.  &  N.  W.  R.,  group  rates  on 

lumber,  reasonableness  of I  520 

Waldo    Station    (about    IH    miles    northwest),    railroad 

crossing,  protection  of XII  251 

to    Sheboygan,    joint    rates    on    barley    established 

between  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R V  668 

Wales  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Walworth,  electric  rates V  171 

,  electric  service XV  383 

,  telephone  rates XV  412 

Warrens   (crossing  23^   miles  west  of),   railroad  crossing, 

restoration  of X  531 

Washburn  from  Ashland,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood  bolts. .I,V  465 

from  Bayfield,  rates  on  logs,  reasonableness  of  and 

refund .....XIV  289 

from  Beaver  Spur,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  bolts, 

and  refund XV  294 

from  Grandview,  refund  on  shipment  of  wood  bolts Ill  600 

from  Rickerd's  Spur,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs V  666 

from  Seeley,  refund  on  shipments  of  bolts XII  192 

from  Superior,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  slaked  lime, 

and  refund XV  160 

,  water  rates  and  installation  of  meters VI  74 

Waterloo,  telephone  rates VI  187 


796  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 

Waterloo,  water  and  electric  rates,  management XV  534 

Watertown  and  Ixonia,  town  of  (town  road  between),  inter- 
urban  railway  service. ...y XII  404 

-,  street  lighting  rates XIV  604 

from  Wis.  points  on  La  Farge  branch  of  C.  M.  &  St. 

P.  R.,  reduction  of  rates  on  lumber VIII  131' 

from  La  Crosse,  rates  on  dried  brewers'  grains V  705 

from  La  Farge,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VIII  131 

fromMattoon  Railway  points,  joint  rates V  531 

and  Milwaukee,  withdrawal  of  commutation  rate  be- 


tween  Ill  330 

—  to  New  London,  refund  on  shipment  of  coke VIII  566 

— ,  Sparta,  Madison  and  Janesville  from  Wis.  points  on 
the  G.  B.  &  W.  R.,  joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness 

of :.... : II  807 

— ,  station  facilities IV  136 

— ,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  interference  of  high  voltage 


transmission  lines XV  619 

and  Fond  du  Lac,  train  service  between XII  74 

,  water  rates XIV  669 

Waukesha,  interurban  railway,  service  and  station  facilities, 

adequacy  of XIII  89 

and  Milwaukee,  interurban  rates X  306 

,  gas  and  electric  rates XIJI  100 

(2  miles  northeast  of),  (Stone  crossing),  railroad  cross- 
ing, protection  of XI  658 

county,  (crossing  on  North  Lake  branch  line  of  G.  M. 

&  St.  P.  R.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of XV  203 

from  Wis.  points  on  the  G.  &  N.  W.  R.  and  other  lines, 

switching  rates  on  slab  wood,  kiln  wood  and  cordwood XIII  650 

to  Wis.  points  (designated)  on  G.  &  N.  W.  R.,  refund 

on  shipments  of  gravel  and  crushed  stone XIII  368 

to  Wis.  points  on  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  & 

N.  W.  R.,  reduction  of  rates  on  crushed  stone,  gravel, 

lime  and  sand IX  347 

to ,  (designated)  on  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and 

the  G.  &  N.  W.  R.,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

to on  the  G.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  the  G.  &  N.  W. 

R.,  reduction  of  rates  on  gravel,  crushed  stone  and  lime. ...IX  87 
to on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  and  other  lines, 

joint  rates  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

from on  the  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.,  switching 


rate  on  wood XIII  372 

— ,  switching  rates,  reasonableness  of,  refund XIII  534 

—  to  Black  River  Falls,  rates  on  shipment  of  ground  lime- 
stone, reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  579 

—  to  Durand,  rates  on  shipment  of  ground  limestone, 
reasonableness  of  and  refund XIV  18 


Localities  Index  797 


Vol.  and  Page 
Waukesha  to  Merrill,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  slaked  lime 

and  refund : XV  1C2 

to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  beer VI  518 

to ,  rates  on  beer,  reasonableness  of V  546 

from ,  rates  on  shipments  of  bottles,  reasonableness 

of,  and  refund XIV  77 

from ,  refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron Ill  383 

to ,  refund  on  shipment  of  stone IX  .  167 

from  Rice  Lake,  refund  on  shipments  of  excelsior XIII  635 

from  Unity,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood VIII  34;  IX  165 


Waunakee,  (Main  street),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of.... XI I  380 

Waupaca,  electric  and  street  railway  rates V  190 

(VJis.  Veterans'  Home)  and  Farmington,  carrying  of 

freight  by  electric  railway XV  656 

— ,  electric  street  lighting VIII  586;  IX  310 

— — ,  reasonableness  of  switching  rates XI  485 

— —  and  Scandinavia  from  Gravel  Pit,  reasonableness  of 

rates  on  sand  and  gravel ...XV  482 

Waupun  to  Menomonie,  refund  on  shipment  of  twine XIII  393 

W^ausau,  street  railway  rates.\ V  114 

— —  to  Eau  Claire  Villa,  street  railway  fare  zones  and  rates 

of  fare Ill     ,  520 

to  W  isconsin  points  on  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  (north 

of  Hurley  and  west  of  Abbottsford  to  the  state  line), 

establishment  of  joint  rates VII  41 

from ,  concentration  rates  on  lumber Ill  605 

from ,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber IV  256 

from ,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  271 

from ,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber 

IV,  323,  327,  335,  337,  405,  457,  459,  461,  463 

from  Bushwell,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs VI  217 

from  Cotter,  Doering,  Heineman  and  Russian',  refund 

on  shipment  of  logs IX  281 

from  Green  Bay,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

from  Grimms,  refund  on  shipment  of  lime IX  160 

from  Heafford  Jet.,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs IV  362 

to  Horicon,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber VI  434 

from  Manitowoc,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

-^ ,  Marshfield,  and  intermediate  stations,  to  Bolton,  Bear 

Trap,  and  intermediate  stations,  reasonableness  of  rates 

on  hay,  and  refunds  on  shipments XII  433 

from  Milwaukee,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

to  Minocqua,  reasdnableness  of  rates  on  lumber  and  re- 
fund  XV  521 

to ,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer XIII  527 

to  New  London,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber  and 

wooden  boxes XI 1 1  772 

— —  to ,  refund  on  shipments  of  wooden  boxes XIII  698 

from  Rhinelander,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  768 


798 Localities  Index 

Vol.  and  Page 

Wausau  from  Rib  Falls,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber IV  356 

— —  from  Sheboygan,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

to  Tomahawk,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  beer XIII  527 

to  — —  and  Minocqua,  rates  on  shipment  of  beer, 

reasonableness  of,  and  refund XIV  508 

to  Winchester,  refund  on  shipment  of  hay ....XIII  468 

,  telephone  rates  and  service XI  480 

Wausaukee  to  Fond  du  Lac  and  Berlin,  refund  on  shipment    ■ 

of  wood XI  706 

Wautoma  (Mount  Morris  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection 

of IX  365 

,  telephone  rates VI  419 

Wauwatosa,  interurban  rates,  reasonableness  of XIII  475 

and  Milwaukee  (between),  street  railway  service,  ade- 
quacy of I  689 

and ,  street  railway  fare  limits,  extension  of  single 

fare  limits X  337 

,  town  of  (Blue  Mounds  road),  railroad  crossing,  sepa- 
ration of  grades VII  760 

, ,  (Burleigh  street),  railroad    crossing,    protection 

of..: VII  453 

, ,  (Lisbon  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of VII  625 

,  ,  (North  ave.),  railroad  crossing,   restoration  of 

highway VII   709;  IX  262 

,   (North  Town  Line  road),   railroad   crossing, 

separation  of  grades IX  267 

,   (North  Town   Line  road),   railroad   crossing, 

protection  of VII  455 

, (Potter  av.),  railroad  crossing,  protection  of VII  451 

, (South  Line  road),  railroad  crossing,  separation 

of  grades VII  737 

,  — —  (Watertown  road),  railroad  crossing,  protection 

of VII  621 

,  County  Institutions  near,  and  Milwaukee,  switching 

charges  between Ill  377 

from  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipment  of  coal VI,  531;  VIII,  477 

Wauzeka  {!%  miles  north  of),  railroad  crossings,  protec- 
tion of X  426 

Waverley  Beach  and  Brighton  Beach  (between),  near  Lake 

Winnebago,  stopping  of  interurban  cars XIV  811 

Wayne,  town  of,  Washington  Co.,  railroad  crossings  pro- 
tection of X  493 

Webster  from  Ashland,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber XII  701 

Wedges  Creek  gravel  pit,  "end  of  track,"  from  Columbia  or 
Wedges  Creek  Jet.,  refund  on  shipment  of  construction 

material IV  412 

Wedges  Creek  Jet.  or  Columbia,  to  "end  o\  track,"  at 
Wedges  Creek  gravel  pit,  refund  on  shipment  of  con- 
struction material IV  412;   VI   173 


Localities  Index  799 


Vol.  and  Page 

Welcome,  telephone  rates XI  180 

West    Allis    and    Milwaukee    (between),    suburban    rates, 

reasonableness  of XIII  475 

and  Calhoun  (between),  interurban  rates,  reason- 
ableness of XIII  475 

and  Milwaukee,  street  railway,  fare  limits,  extension 

of  single  fare  limits X  314 

(National  ave.),  railroad  crossing,  separation  of  grades. ..VII  493 

from  Mayville,  rates  on  shipment  of  fuel  oil,  reason- 
ableness of,  and  refund XIV  577 

from  Waukesha,  refund  on  shipment  of  gravel  and 

crushed  stone XIII  368 

(State  Fair  Park),  train  service,  adequacy  of XV  110 

West  Bend  from  Monroe,  refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron 

and  establishment  of  joint  rates....  .........VIII  328 

from  Monroe,  refund  on  shipment  of  scrap  iron IV  268 

from  Rockfield,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XIII  38 

from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

Westboro  to  Milwaukee,  refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark,..XIII  378 

Western  boundary  line  of  the  state  and  Grantsburg,  train 

service  between VIII  685 

Western  Siding  from  Shawano,  refund  on  shipment  of  salt...  VI  497 

West  Kewaunee,  town  of,  telephone  utility,  extension  of 

lines XIV  219 

West    Milwaukee    from    Milwaukee,    switching    rates    on 

building  material  and  refund  on  shipments XII I  673 

Westport,  town  of,  railroad  crossing,  alteration  of IX  218 

West  Rosendale,  stopping  of  certain  limited  passenger  trains. Ill  602 

West  Salem,   switch  connection,   public   convenience  and 

necessity  of  track  connections XV  254 

,  electric  service,  adequacy  of XIII  637 

W^eyauwega,  station  facilities  and  train  service XII  54 

Weyerhauser   to    Wis.  points    (southern  Wis.),  refund  on 

shipments  of  lumber  and  reduction  of  joint  rates V       647,  655 

to  Beaver  Dam,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction  of 

joint  rates V  655 

to  Burlington,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and 

reduction  of  joint  rates V  663 

to  Fairwater,  Germantown,  Racine,  Schleisingerville, 

and  Tomah,  refund  on  shipments  and  reduction  of  joint 

rates V  655 

to  Wonewoc,   refund  on  shipments  of  lumber  and 

reduction  of  joint  rates V  647 

Wheaton  and  Tilden  (between),  Cameron  crossing  {%  mile 
southeast  of  Howard  siding,)  railroad  crossing,  protec- 
tion of XV  667 

Whitehall,  electric  rates IX  479 

from  Rhinelander,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber V  729 

Whitewater,  electric  rates XV  517 


802  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Wisconsin  points  on  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.,  to  Janesville,  refund 

on  shipnrient  of  grain X  377 

(designated),  on  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  and  C.  &  N.  W. 

R.  from  Waukesha,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lime XI  419 

on  La  Farge  branch  of  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  to  Oshkosh, 

Fond  du  Lac,  and  Watertown,  reduction  of  rates  on 

lumber VIII  131 

(between),  on  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.,  passenger  rates. 


reasonableness  of ...I  324 

—  on  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R.  from  Janesville,  refund  on  ship- 
ments of  sand  and  gravel XIII  380 

—  on ,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  saw  logs  and  bolts, 

and  refund XV  645 

—  on and  other 'lines,  establishment  of  joint  rates  on 

tile  and  on  brick  and  tile XIII  756 

—  on  and  L.  C. '&  S.  E.  R.  to  Viroqua,  concen- 
tration rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  tobacco XI  439 

—  on  the  Mineral  Point  division  of  the  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  R. 

and  I.  C.  R.  from  Blanchardville,  rates  on  wagons IX  509 

—  on  the  C.  AI.  &  St.  P.  R.  to  Brokaw,  refund  on  shipment 

of  wood ; XI  417 

—  on  the  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  O.  R.  concentration  rates  estab- 
lished  VI  625 

—  on and  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.,  rates  on  con- 
crete blocks : .....IX  82 

—  (between)  on  C.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.,  passenger  rates, 
reasonableness  of I  510 

—  on  G.  St.  P.  M.  &  0.  R.  to  Ashland,  concentration  rates 

on  wood,  reasonableness  of I  16 

—  on  the  G.  B.  &  W.  R.  to  Sparta,  Madison,  Janesville, 


Watertown,  joint  rates  on  tobacco,  reasonableness  of II  807 

—  on  Marathon  County  R.,  carload  rates  for  "jimmy" 

cars II  64 

—  on and  the  C.  &N.  W.  R.,  joint  rates,  division  of  ...XII  170 

-on andthe  C.  &N.  W.  R.,  joint  rates X  409 

—  on ,  reasonableness  of  rates VII  392 

—  on  Mattoon  R.,  rates  on  logs  and  bolts,  reasonableness 

of II  333 

—  on  M.  Pt.  &  N.  R.,  rates  on  lead  and  zinc  ore,  reason- 
ableness of I  99 

—  on  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  and  other  lines  from 
Waukesha,  joint  rates  on  agricultural  limestone XIII  471 

—  on    to    Oshkosh    and    Menasha,    reasonableness 

of  rates  on  bolts  and  refund XV  178 

—  on (north  of  Hurley  and  west  of  Abbottsford  to 

the  state  line),  from  Wausau,  establishment  of  joint  rates. VI I  41 

—  on to  Burlington,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs XI  492 

—  on to  Menasha,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs  and 

bolts XI  746 


Localities  Index  803 


Vol.  and  Page 
Wisconsin  points  (between)  on  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  pas- 
senger rates,  reasonableness  of I  510 

on  M.  St.  P.  &  S.  S.  M.  R.  to  Waukesha,  switching  rate 

on  wood XIII  372 

on to  Nekoosa,  Port  Edwards,  and  Rhinelander, 

reduction  of  rates,  and  refund  on  shipment  of  wood XI  393 

on  to  Grand  Rapids,   Menasha,   Neenah,  Ne- 
koosa,   Port   Edwards   and   Rhinelander,    reduction   of 

rates  on  wood XI  393 

from  Milwaukee,  appHcation  of  the  Milwaukee  and 

Fox  River  Valley  R.  Co.  for  a  certificate  of  public  con- 
venience and  necessity V  466 

on  W.  C.  R.,  minimum  weights  on  hay,  reasonableness 

of ..; I  91 

on  to  Neenah-Menasha,  rates  on  pulp  wood, 

reasonableness  of I  234 

on  — —  to  Milwaukee,  rates  on  tanbark,  reasonable- 
ness of  and  refund II  761 

(northern  Wis.)  to  Appleton,  refund  on  shipments  of 

pulp  wood VI  175 

to  Gazenovia,  joint  railroad  rates VI  693 

to  Ghippewa  Falls,  Menomonee  Falls,  and  Janesville, 

rates  on  sugar  beets  and  beet  pulp,  reasonableness  of I  258 

— ^  to  Cudahy  and  Milwaukee,  rates  on  live  stock,  reason- 
ableness of I  778 

to  Edgerton,  refund  on  shipments  of  cordwood IV  480 

to  Fond  du  Lac,  minimum  carload  weights  and  refund 

on  shipment IX  228 

to  Grand  Rapids,  Port  Edwards  and  Nekoosa,  reduc- 
tion of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of  pulp  w^ood IX  1 11 

to  Green  Bay,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  388 

• to  Hudson,  and  destined  to  Manitowoc  and  Milwaukee, 

refund  on  shipments  of  grain..' IV  488 

to  Ironton,  joint  railroad  rates VI  693 

to  Kiel,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs Ill  597 

(northern  Wis.)  to  Kimberly,  refund  on  shipments  of 

pulp  wood VI  175 

(southern  and  eastern)  from  La  Crosse,  rates  on  dried 

brewers'  grains V  705 

from  La  Crosse,  less  than  carload  rates  on  petroleum 

products VI   .  326 

(southern  Wis.)  from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments 

of  lumber  and  reduction  of  joint  rates V       647,  655 

from  Laona,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber VII  774 

to  and  from  Lavalle,  joint  railroad  rates VI  693 

to  Madison,  refund  on  shipments  of  butter  and  eggs Ill  337 

to    Manitowoc    and    Milwaukee,    with    stoppage    in 

transit  at  Hudson,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain IV  488 

to  Marshfield,  refund  on  shipment  of  logs VI  571 


804  Localities  Index 


Vol.  and  Page 
Wisconsin  points  from  Mattoon,  joint  and  local  rates,  dis- 
crimination in  car  service V  531 

to  Menasha  and  Neenah,  reduction  of  rates  on  pulp 

wood IX        .      Ill 

from     Milwa«kee,     articles     constituting     personal 


baggage VIII  115 

from ,  reduction  of  rates  on  boxes XI  101 

(southwestern),    to    Milwaukee,     rates    on    cheese, 

reasonableness  of I  143 

to  Milwaukee,  rates  on  grain,  reasonableness  of I  124 

^to ,  minimum  carload  weights  on  grain Ill  182 

from  ,   less   than   carload   rates   on   petroleum 

products VI  326 

to ,  refund  on  shipments  of  tanbark Ill  181 

from   ,    refund   on   shipments   of   vehicles   and 

agricultural  implements VII  17 

to  Osceola,  refund  on  shipments  of  grain V  291 

to ,  refund  on  shipments  of  rye  and  barley IV   .  483 

to  Portage,  concentration  rates  on  butter  and  eggs Ill  I 

to  Reedsburg,  concentration  rates  on  butter  and  eggs.. I II  32 

to  Reedsburg,  refund  on  shipments  of  eggs Ill     335,338 

to  Rhinelander,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  logs,  and 

refund XV  569 

to ,  reduction  of  rates  and  refund  on  shipment  of 

pulp  wood IX  111 

■  to ,•  reasonableness  of  rates VIII  105 

to  Rockfield,  refund  on  shipments  of  wood Ill  590 

to  Two  Rivers,  refund  on  shipments  of  logs  and  bolts.. IV  355 

to  Wausau,  concentration  rates  on  lumber Ill  605 

to ,  reasonableness  of  rates  on  lumber IV  256 

to  — — ,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber 

IV,  271,  323,  327,  335,  337,  405,  457,  459,  461,  463 
(southern  Wis.),  from  W^eyerhauser,  refund  on  ship- 
ments of  lumber  and  reduction  of  joint  rates V       647,  655 

Wisconsin  River  Valley  points,  from  Lake  Michigan  ports 

in  Wis.,  group  rates  on  coal VI  436 

Withee,  electric  rates XIII  704 

,  telephone  utihties,  physical  connection XIV  419 

Wonewoc  from  Ladysmith,  refund  on  shipments  of  lumber 

and  reduction  of  joint  rates V  647 

from  Weyerhauser,  refund  on   shipments   of   lumber 

'and  reduction  of  joint  rates V.  647 

,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  399 

Wood  County,  telephone  utilities,  physical  connection XV  244 

Woodland  from  Spring  Valley,  refund  on  shipment  of  lumber  XII  131 
Woodville    and    Spring    Valley    (between),    train    service, 

adequacy  of XIV  775 


\ 


Localities  Index 805 

Vol.  and  Page 

Wyocena,  town  of,  certificate  of  public  convenience  and  ^ 

necessity XI  552 

and  Portage  (sand  and  gravel  bed  between),  spur  track.. VI  556 

,  telephone  rates  and  service VIII  •  92 

,  telephone  rates XI  499 

,  train  service,  adequacy  of ...I  532 

Y 

Yolo,  railroad  crossing,  protection  of... X  528 


^■^*; '  ■* 


VC  352%" 


■,';.■;; 


1 1 . 


